Skip to main content

Full text of "International conciliation"

See other formats


ONIV.OF 



III I fill 



LlBRfT"' 



Digitized by tine Internet Arciiive 

in 2007 witii funding from 

IVIicrosoft Corporation 



littp://www.arcli ive.org/details/98a121internatio00carnuoft 



(.5^ 



INTSRNATIOl^AL CONCILIATION 



Nos. 98-lOS^ llO-ia.| 



1916 ~ ^\7 



-American Assoc, for Internat. Conciliation 
New York City 






International Conciliation 

''I Published monthly by the 

( American Association for International Conciliation. 

Entered as second class matter at New York, N. Y., 
Postofiice, February 23, 1909, under act of July 16, 1894 



THE LAND WHERE HATRED EXPIRES 




ALBERT LEON GUERARD 

Professor of the History of French Culture, Rice Institute, 
Houston, Texas 



JANUARY, 

No. 98 



1916 






American Association for International Conciliation 

Sub-Station 84 (407 West 1 17th Street) 

New York City 

1915 



It is the aim of the Association for International Con- 
ciliation to awaken interest and to seek co-operation 
in the movement to promote international good will. 
This movement depends for its ultimate success upon 
increased international understanding, appreciation, 
and sjmipathy. To this end, documents are printed 
and widely circulated, giving information as to the 
progress of the movement and as to matters connected 
therewith, in order that individual citizens, the news- 
paper press, and organizations of various kinds may 
have accurate information on these subjects readily 
available. 

It is the aim of the Association to avoid, as far as 
possible, contentious questions, and in particular 
questions relating to the domestic policy of any given 
nation. Attention is to be fixed rather upon those 
underljring principles of international law, international 
conduct, and international organization, which must 
be agreed upon and enforced by all nations if peaceful 
civilization is to continue and to be advanced. A list 
of publications will be found on page 15. 






f\ -\_ t\ 



THE LAND WHERE HATRED EXPIRES 

THE NEW ARGONAUTS. 

Never shall I forget a stormy autumn crossing on the 
old French liner La Touraine, nearly nine years ago. 
It was my first voyage to America. A magnetic influence 
drew me to the forward part of the ship, as far as we were 
allowed to go, and there, lashed by the sharp salt wind, I 
would spend long hours, alone, peering into the cold and 
pale horizon, towards that mysterious Western land which 
was to become my country. Twenty feet below, on the 
main deck, there swarmed and seethed a crowd of steerage 
passengers, unkempt, sordid, cheerful withal; they too 
were straining their eyes, although they knew that nought 
was to be seen for several days, towards the lure of the 
setting sun. A full shipload of human freight — reeking, 
ignorant, worse perhaps, but all illumined by an uncon- 
querable hope: America! America, the land of promise, 
the land of freedom, the land of opportunity ; America ! A 
new heaven and a new earth. Each throb of the mighty 
engine brought us nearer to that land of our dreams, across 
the wilderness of heaving and tossing waters, now somber, 
now strangely pale under the gray sky. The infinite anguish 
and the secret exhilaration of that lonely crossing will never 
fade in my memory. 

Young people who but yesterday were at school, mem- 
bers of the graduating class, you remind me of us, the new 
Argonauts, the latter-day pilgrims. You stand to-day as 
we stood then^ peering with eager eyes into the same 
horizon — the promise of American life. You are, as we 
were, candidates for citizenship. Your journey has been 



smoother than ours, over sunlit seas and with merry com- 
panions. But, because they come to you as a matter of 
course, may you never forget the promise, and the wonder, 
and the responsibilities, of that call to American citizen- 
ship ! Perhaps we, who have known other conditions, may 
help you realize your blessings and your duties. I hope 
you will not resent the paradoxical form of the statement: 
but I firmly believe that it is we, the newcomers, the immi- 
grants, who are at heart the true Americans. Others may 
happen to be bom between the Great Lakes and the Rio 
Grande; we came because we heard the distant call of the 
American spirit, and because it struck a deep note of re- 
sponse in our own hearts. We who left the old home of 
our own accord, not without a wrench, to seek a free life, 
we are the true descendants of the discoverers and pioneers 
of old, adventurers and missionaries, Spanish conquista- 
dores, French Jesuits or Coureurs des Bois, Pilgrim 
Fathers or Quakers. We were not born in America; that 
was a mistake perhaps ; but we were born Americans, and 
we came home as soon as we knew where to find our home. 
And this is why a man who spent a quarter of a century on 
the other side is so bold as to address you to-day, and to 
interpret before you the spirit of America. 

THE BLENDING OF TRADITIONS. 

A motley crowd were we, cabin passengers and steerage 
alike, on the good ship La Toiiraine; stolid and stocky 
folk from Central Europe, swarthy men and women from 
the Southlands, Jews from Poland and Rumania. And 
by this time we are Americans, one and all. We have 
given up our native speech for the wonderful tongue of 
Shakespeare, W. J. Bryan and George Ade ; the picturesque 
garb of ancient villages has been uiscarded for the plain 
and sensible uniform of American civilization ; titles and 
dynastic allegiance have been left, as undesirable, at the 



gateway of Ellis Island; and our very habits of thought 
have undergone a radical change. But do you believe that 
we have dropped like a burden all the immemorial traditions 
of our home lands? We have not, and it would be a thou- 
sand pities if we had. For the primal glory of the Ameri- 
can spirit is that it is a blend of all that Europe has to 
offer. A blend, not a mosaic. I recognize no sub-nationali- 
ties under the Stars and Stripes. I hate the look and the 
sound of such words as French- American, English- Ameri- 
can, German- American. Local prejudices ought not to be 
imported from over the water. But I have no respect and 
no sympathy for the man who turns in anger and in de- 
rision against the land of his birth. It is only good French- 
men, good Germans, good Russians, that will make good 
Americans. The wonderful range of America is due to the 
very facts that from the most varied corners of Europe, 
strong men and women have come, each with his or her 
potentialities. It would be suicidal for America to ignore 
that fact, which ought to be her pride. We are a com- 
posite nation, and our duty, as we become more and more 
American, is not to forget our own ancestors, not to limit 
our traditions to the hundred and forty years of independ- 
ent national life, but to trace all the roots of the mighty 
American tree to the various transatlantic soils where they 
first grew. Let us — if you will forgive the familiarity of 
the expression — first let us pool our ancestors — let us all be 
heirs to all ! The greatest privilege of American citizen- 
ship is just that blending of traditions. I feel now as if 
my two grandfathers had bravely fought against each other 
at Gettysburg; I know it was partly for me that Washing- 
ton displayed his quiet heroism and his serene wisdom. 

THE ENGLISH AND FRENCH HERITAGE OF AMERICA. 

But that is not all. I feel as though the whole glorious 
past of England were mine, as it is yours — England, dear 



•old England, that has given us her speech, the unrivaled 
treasure of her literature, her indomitable spirit of adven- 
ture, her passionate desire for freedom and fair-play, her 
sound practical sense, and her deep-seated belief in our 
responsibility before a Power not of this world. Your 
English heritage is now mine; and that of all my fellow 
passengers on the Totiraine — a priceless possession. But 
I want you to remember that all Americans are French 
to a certain degree. Was it not the ideas of XVIIIth 
century French philosophy, grafted on the sturdy old Eng- 
lish tradition, that flowered in the American revolution? 
Have you not received from France, and preserved to this 
<iay, a hatred for caste and privilege, a love for logic and 
simplicity, a healthy radicalism of mind, a generous faith 
in human nature, which bids us look forward and not back ? 
Is not all that traditionally French rather than English or 
German? Is not your art, I would not say an oflFshoot, 
but a younger and flourishing branch of French art, striv- 
ing towards the same ideal? It is well-known that good 
Americans, when they die, go to Paris. Some good Ameri- 
cans must have reached Paris alive, for even before this 
war, Americans were by far the most popular foreigners 
in the French capital, and the United States is the only 
country where a Frenchman feels immediately at home. 

OUR DEBT TO GERMANY. 

And I do not want you to forget that we Americans are 
all the sons of Germany too, even those of us in whose 
veins there flows not one drop of Teutonic blood. Our 
ten million fellow citizens of German extraction have 
colored the whole American soul. They have brought with 
them the old German qualities of steady labor, cleanliness, 
thrift, the love of home and the fear of God. We are all 

6 



the beneficiaries of the German Reformation, yea, even the 
Roman CathoHcs among us, for without Martin Luther 
the Church would not have reformed herself at Trent. 
We are all beholden to the great philosophers, poets, scien- 
tists and musicians of the German past, to Goethe and 
Schiller, to Kant and Hegel, to Beethoven and Wagner. 
Those names mean infinitely more to us than those of many 
of our most prominent compatriots. Whatever folly or 
crime our kinsfolk may be committing at this hour, and 
under whatever flag, it is our privilege and it is our mis- 
sion, as Americans, to cherish and preserve, more truly 
perhaps than they themselves, the treasures of their splendid 
cultural tradition. 

ITALY, SPAIN, RUSSIA, JAPAN. 

And I want you to love and respect Italy too. Italy, twice 
the mistress or leader of the world, at the time of the 
Roman Empire and at the time of the Renaissance; Italy, 
laden with such a burden of historical glory that it seems 
as though any nation would sink under it ; and yet she lives 
and grows, energetic, self-confident, joyous, conscious of 
her past greatness, but not awed, and thus proving herself 
worthy of a still greater future; Italy, oldest and youngest 
of great nations, still as of old the breeding-ground and the 
Mecca of innumerable artists; Italy, well to the fore in 
science, and making giant strides in good government. I 
want you to remember and love the chivalrous and mystic 
spirit of old Spain, gloomy and ferocious at times, but 
which wrote for us the grandest epic of discovery and con- 
quest; I want you to seek and love the vast, vague and 
mighty spirit of Holy Russia, the land of sorrow, whence 
came such words of peace and love, through the lips of 
Tolstoy, as the world had not heard for many hundred 

7 



years. I want you to know and love the smiling heroism 
and the artistic witchery of the Japanese. America is heir 
to all the world. Do not cut off any part of what is right- 
fully yours. Do not fear lest this Pantheon of many na- 
tional ideals should turn into a Pandemonium — for the 
American spirit is large enough to harmonize them all. 

THE LAND WHERE HATE EXPIRES. 

For this is indeed "the land where hate expires," the 
land of universal reconciliation. This is the land where all 
are given a fair chance, and where Englishmen, French- 
men, Austrians, Russians, Germans can meet on a common 
ground of democracy, justice and good fellowship; where 
they have at last a chance of becoming acquainted with 
one another, and, knowing one another, to appreciate and 
love. For hatred is but the child of ignorance; all educa- 
tion consists in unlearning hatred. One of my very good 
friends on the Rice faculty is a fiery young Prussian. If 
we were both in Europe we would be hurling at each other 
bombs, shrapnels, hand grenades, asphyxiating gases, and 
other inventions of the Father of Wars; here, we do not 
hurl even epithets at each other's heads, but meet socially, 
and even are able to discuss with tolerable coolness the 
philosophy of the present conflict. There is something in 
the American atmosphere which is deadly to hatred. Just 
as the veterans of Gettysburg can be friends, the veterans 
of Gravelotte and Mars-la-Tour, remember nought but the 
heroism, and forget the bitter animosity of their old quar- 
rels. Only perhaps under the Stars and Stripes will men 
who fought on opposite sides at Liege, Charleroi, the Marne 
or Tannenberg be able to shake hands as men and brothers. 
For generations France has been the "Erbfeind," the he- 
reditary foe, of Germany ; for nearly half a century she has 

8 



nursed a fierce desire for revenge; Germany is singing to- 
day: "We shall never forego our hate — we have one foe 
and one alone: England!" And even Christian ministers 
greet each other with the sinister wish: God punish Eng- 
land ! — Oh ! What a blessing it is to live in this land which 
bears malice to none, this land which recognizes no heredi- 
tary foes but sin, ignorance and disease, this land where hate 
expires ! 

And what is the reason for this wonderful privilege of 
America? Is there something in our soil, in our climate, 
in the air we breathe, that is physically uncongenial to the 
dark flower of hatred, which blooms so rankly in the blood- 
sodden fields of Europe? Evidently not. The men who 
are so fiercely fighting in the old countries are our kins- 
men; our climate is not milder than theirs, nor is our soil 
more fruitful ; their culture is fully abreast of ours. What 
then is the key to this strange contrast? 

PRINCIPLES vs. traditions: the dead hand of the past 

IN EUROPE. 

The reason for America's sanity as a nation, the unique 
power which enables her to welcome men from all parts 
of the world and to turn them into loyal citizens, is that 
America is a country that looks forward instead of back- 
ward — in other terms, a country whose ideals are principles 
instead of traditions. Allow a professional student and 
teacher of history to state the fact quite frankly: Europe 
is suffering from an overdose of the historical spirit; 
Europe lacks the healthy radicalism, the youthfulness, I 
had almost said the boyishness, of the American mind. 
When you travel in dear old Europe, you are delighted 
with the quaint villages, the churches and castles hoary 
with centuries, the bright costumes of the peasant women, 



the narrow, crooked lanes of medieval cities, the pomp of 
court functions and military pageants. History is beauti- 
ful for the poet, the artist, and even for the casual traveler. 
But Europe is choked up with history. The German im- 
agination has been so filled with thoughts of the middle 
ages that, with them, history amounts to an obsession, to 
a mental disease. For a long time the French would hark 
back to ancient Gaul, with the Rhine as its Northeastern 
boundary. The French and the Germans are still fighting 
out the consequences of the treaty of Verdun in 843. 
Traditions, customs, institutions, dynasties, have cast their 
potent spell over the minds of our European friends. They 
are haunted with memories of the gorgeous and tragic past ; 
and, in the shadowy world in which they live, they have 
lost the sense of actual values. Do not believe that I do 
not feel the poignant charm, the secret and subtle appeal 
of the undying past. But, for Heaven's sake, do not mix 
up archeology and poetry with present-day politics ; let by- 
gones be bygones, let the dead bury their dead, do not 
allow fossils to obstruct the path of living men ! Historical 
traditions, at present, are the last frontiers, the only bar- 
riers between nations. From the point of view of science, 
of commerce, of industry, of philosophy, Europe is one, 
the whole Western world is one, and very soon the whole 
world, East and West, will be one. Even soldiers of con- 
tending nations are more and more alike in uniform, arma- 
ment and spirit. But whilst all the thousand streams of 
modern civilization are converging into one mighty river, 
historical culture reverses the process; it looks backward, 
towards the head waters of each rivulet; it preserves and 
emphasizes differences which, if left to themselves, would 
soon disappear in the broad current of modern thought. 
The nationalistic, traditionalist education of Europe fos- 
ters exclusiveness, diffidence, hatred. Hence the strange 

10 



paradox that the best educated of all European nations is 
also the most bigoted in its pride and selfishness; that the 
hateful prejudices which have caused the present war have 
been kept up, not by the common people, but by poets, 
politicians and University professors. All of us, when we 
come to America, are welcome to preserve our sentimental 
and artistic traditions ; but we are expected to leave behind 
all the hereditary jealousies which are the warp and woof 
of European history. What Europe needs is a similar 
experience, a great unlearning, a mighty revolution against 
the dead hand of the past that still oppresses her. The 
past is past! Let us cherish the fine old stories of our 
fathers' heroic deeds. But let us settle all present and 
future differences as men of the twentieth century. If we 
could but conjure away that incubus of historical traditions, 
peace would be at hand. 

OUR IDEALISTIC PATRIOTISM. 

Many Europeans believe that those very traditions — a 
war-stained history, a nobility, a dynasty — are essential to 
a nation. They despise the dead level of our democracy, 
the uninteresting record of our party struggles, barely re- 
lieved by two or three wars, one only waged on a large 
scale. They call us sordid materialists, because our ideal is 
not to glorify wholesale murder. Materialists, we! It is 
Germany, England, Russia, even France, that are material- 
ists in their worship of a certain territory, of certain insti- 
tutions, of certain men. We are idealists, for the unity of 
our nation is based on nothing material ; it is based on prin- 
ciples. The race and the speech of our people might grad- 
ually change beyond recognition; our constitution might 
be altered in such a way as to puzzle those that framed it; 
yet, so long as we remain true to certain guiding ideas, 
America would be herself still. 

II 



DEMOCRACY AND JUSTICE. 

And what is the first and greatest of these ideas ? Is it 
democracy? Is it liberty? No; it is justice. Liberty is 
but a negative ideal at best ; we know that liberty has limits ; 
there is no limit to justice. Where perfect justice reigns, 
there true liberty will rule also. Not democracy : democracy 
is a vague term. If by democracy you mean universal 
suffrage, you will find that democracy is but a means of 
assuring better justice, of doing away with the hereditary 
injustices of caste and autocracy, of maintaining fair play 
in the political field. America is the land where we strive 
to give every man according to his deserts: the normal 
man full liberty, the lunatic and the thief an asylum or a 
jail, the murderer an electric chair. We believe in justice, 
we love justice, as the one essential element of the Ameri- 
can ideal. 

Now, it would not do for us to pat ourselves on the 
back and say: "What fine fellows we are!" There are 
as fine fellows as any of us on the other side ; but they 
suffer from handicaps and limitations that we have been 
able to shake off. Superiority is no justification for self- 
complacency and a pharisaical attitude. Superiority spells 
responsibility. If it be true that the American spirit stands 
for justice, then there is a huge task before us, and ap- 
palling dangers. 

THE AMERICAN IDEAL AND THE RACE QUESTION. 

You will have, men and women of the South, to apply 
your American principles to the race question. There we 
see the advantage of adopting "justice" rather than "de- 
mocracy'* as our watchword. A crude misinterpretation of 
democracy placed the South, for a few years, at the mercy 

12 



of a totally unprepared electorate; and you have been 
shuddering at the memory of those dark days for two 
generations. The time has come when you can afford to 
be just — to frame such laws that the illiterate, the drunk- 
ard, the criminal, be excluded from the privileges of active 
citizenship; whilst all desirable citizens, whatever may be 
their sex, race, color or previous condition of servitude, 
will be welcome to the full exercise of American liberty. 
I do not know whether these words of mine will not be 
resented. I am no platform virtuoso, and I have not come 
here to sing old words to an old tune. Think for your- 
selves, young men and women: do not allow your grand- 
fathers to do your thinking for you. Your grandfathers 
were all right — at least I suppose they were. But you 
have to face the problems of this generation. Do not be 
hypnotized, like the people in Europe, by the injustices 
and miseries of a dead past. Be Americans; the future 
is before you; the future is yours. 

AMERICA THE APOSTLE OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE. 

Not only must we keep America true to the American 
spirit in home affairs, but we must make her a missionary, 
an apostle among nations. A historical tradition is ex- 
clusive and incommunicable: you cannot expect a German 
to be loyal to the memory of Richelieu, Carnot and Gam- 
betta ; or a Frenchman to worship Frederick the Great and 
Bismarck. But if we stand for a principle, if we think 
of the future rather than of the past, of the generations 
for whose destiny we are partly responsible rather than 
of the ancestors who have framed our own destinies — 
then we can bid the whole world to commune with us. 
European patriotism may be in direct and tragic con- 
flict with the dictates of humanity ; the men who sank the 

13 



Lusitania were in all likelihood Christians and gentlemen. 
Sane and good men may be so led astray as to repeat the 
barbaric words : "My country, right or wrong !" American 
patriotism is no shadowy replica of French, German or 
British patriotism; it is of a different kind altogether. It 
cannot conceivably be opposed to the interests of humanity, 
for it is based on humanitarian principles. An American 
cannot consistently say, "My country, right or wrong!" 
for his first concern, his highest duty is that his country 
should be right, rather than victorious in battle. Victory! 
World-wide Empire! The one supremacy that America 
desires is to be a leader in the cause of international as 
well as national justice. And the supreme achievement 
of American patriotism, the American conquest of the 
world, will be the day when the jealous patriotism of 
European countries has died, when all nations are united in 
the bonds of democracy and peace, under the ffigis of 
justice. 

Sons of the discoverers, the conquerors, the pilgrims and 
the pioneers! The task is not done. There are more 
strange and lonely seas for your ships to plough. Never 
have such infinite horizons been revealed to the eyes of 
any generation. Go forth, in the spirit of high adventure ; 
discover for yourselves, and organize for all future gen- 
erations the new America, the promised land that we, 
your elders, dreamed of and shall never see, the universal 
commonwealth founded on justice and love. 



14 



International Conciliation 

Published monthly by the 
American Association for International Conciliation. 
Entered as second class matter at New Yorl<, N. Y., 
Postoffice, February 23, 1909, under act of July 16, 1894 



AMERICAN OPINIONS OF THE 
WORLD WAR 

AS SEEN BY A GERMAN 




EDUARD BERNSTEIN 

translated by 
JOHN MEZ 

FEBRUARY, 1916 
No. 99 



American Association for International Conciliation 

Sub-Station 84 (407 West 11 7th Street) 

New York City 



It is the aim of the Association for International Con- 
ciliation to awaken interest and to seek co-operation 
in the movement to promote international good will. 
This movement depends for its ultimate success upon 
increased international understanding, appreciation, 
and sympathy. To this end, documents are printed 
and widely circulated, giving information as to the 
progress of the movement and as to matters connected 
therewith, in order that individual citizens, the news- 
paper press, and organizations of various kinds may 
have accurate information on these subjects readily 
available. 

It is the aim of the Association to avoid, as far as 
possible, contentious questions, and in particular 
questions relating to the domestic policy of any given 
nation. Attention is to be fixed rather upon those 
underlying principles of international law, international 
conduct, and international organization, which must 
be agreed upon and enforced by all nations if peaceful 
civilization is to continue and to be advanced. A list 
of publications will be found on page 29. 



PREFATORY NOTE 

Eduard Bernstein is one of the foremost members of the Social Demo- 
cratic Party in Germany, a veteran author and publicist, an international 
figure. Born in Berlin sixty-six years ago, the son of a locomotive en- 
gineer, he attended the Prussian schools and from 1866 to 1878 held 
various positions in a bank./ Becoming a Social Democrat in 1872^-the 
year following the proclamation of the present German Empire — he was 
made to feel the weight of the rigorously repressive laws which Bismarck 
directed against the Socialists from 1878 to 1890. Practically exiled 
from his own country, Bernstein lived from 1878 to 1888 in Switzerland. 
Thence expelled through the efforts of Bismarck, he took up his residence 
in London. From 1881 to 1890 he edited the Social Democrat, and for 
many years he has contributed largely to Neue Zeit and other publications 
of the German Social Democracy. 

It was a series of articles by Bernstein in Neue Zeit in 1898 which 
proved epochal in the history of Socialism. In brief, Bernstein demanded 
that the Social Democrats cut loose from the dogmas of Karl Marx. 
He frankly rejected the Marxian conception of history as inadequate to 
explain modern social evolution; he regarded the Marxian labor theory 
of value as untenable; and through careful statistical studies he endeavored 
to show that the prediction of Marx regarding the extinction of the middle 
class through concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands had been 
disproven by the course of events. Against Karl Kantsky and the domi- 
nant school of German Socialists, he urged all the democratic elements in 
his country to work together for the democratization of the German 
Empire and the securing of radical social reforms. 

Though assailed by Kantsky, Bernstein was suffered to remain within 
the Spcial Democratic Party and his right to disagree with Karl Marx 
was actually upheld. In 1901 he returned to Germany, and in 1902 was 
elected a member of the Reichstag as a representative from Breslau. 
Losing his seat in 1907 — the year in which the Emperor William II and 
the Chancellor von Biilow made their great appeal to the country on the 
issue of colonialism and world politics — he was triumphantly re-elected 
in 1912. 

Bernstein has published almost innumerable articles and books. Two 
books — his edition of the speeches and writings of Ferdinand Lassalle and 
his attack on Marxism — have been translated into English. Since the 
beginning of the present war, Bernstein has co-operated with Kantsky 
and Liebknecht in opposing the annexation to Germany of any newly 
conquered territory. 



AMERICAN OPINIONS OF THE WORLD 
• WAR 



By Eduard Bernstein 

The war has brought forth a flood of articles of all descriptions, both 
in the neutral and in the belligerent countries. In magazines and in 
pamphlets, the pros and cons of the justness of the belligerent coalitions 
have been discussed over and over, polemically as well as apologetically, 
both from the viewpoint of the more or less interested sympathizers of 
the respective governments and by such writers whose judgment may 
be considered impartial. It is self-evident that we are especially interested 
to learn the views of the latter kind, provided, of course, that they truly 
reflect or influence the sentiments of a considerable part of the nation. 

But since these views are represented by the daily press mostly for 
specific political purposes whereby the reports are always more or less 
colored, it seems desirable, omitting all one-sided tendencies, to present 
an impartial summary of these publications of prominent men who have 
influenced the American public in one way or the other. For an adequate 
appreciation of and conclusion on the attitude of the American people 
in this matter can only be obtained by being correctly informed as to the 
viewpoints of the various classes towards the war. With this in view 
those utterances are of especial interest which were published before 
the agents of the great political bodies of the United States have attempted 
to control this matter. There has, however, been no lack of such ex- 
pressions of opinion uninfluenced by party considerations. 

Thus, President Charles W. Eliot, of Harvard University, discusses, 
in the New York Times of October, 19 14, what, in his opinion, has been 
essential in forming public opinion in the United States towafd the 
belligerents. His views, some of which at that time have also been 
published in Germany, have since then, almost without exception, been 
endorsed by the presidents of other universities. This implies that his 
views, in truth, represent the sentiments of a large body of the American 
public. 

The American scholar to-day has much more authority than we 
generally assume. We Germans are only too apt to look upon the great 
republic across the Atlantic merely as the country of graft-politicians, 
trust-barons and their kind — hunting for the dollar. But, as a matter 
of fact, besides these influential classes, there are large numbers of pro- 
ductive and industrial elements of all sorts not less respectable than 

4 



the majority of the middle classes and proletarians of the Old World, 
grown up, after all, with the traditions of a republican community, the 
history of which, among its most important events, records two great 
struggles for liberty. Between ideals and actual conditions, there is always 
a deep gulf. But the difference between what a nation believes itself to be, 
and what it really is, is certainly not greater with them to-day than with 
us who want to be regarded as the nation of idealists; although few may 
be found who could appreciate the right of self-government of another 
nation, if this would conflict with the supposed interests of power of one's 
own country. 

In the above-mentioned article. Professor Eliot, after asserting that 
he and his countrymen are in no way prejudiced against Germany or the 
German people, enumerates many attributes and achievements of Germany 
which they, on the contrary, highly esteem, and asserts that it is their 
earnest desire to continue to live in friendship with Germany. But, in 
the present war, with all the strong feeling tending to make the Americans 
sympathetic with the German people in good times or bad, in peace or 
in war, the whole weight of American opinion, according to Eliot, is on 
the side of the Allies. 

Why this? It is interesting to note that Professor Eliot, who wrote 
this letter at a time when America suffered from the war both financially 
and commercially, should consider, as the fundamental cause of the 
anti-German feeling, the contrast between the political conceptions of the 
American and, as he calls it, "certain German national practices of great 
moment — practices which are outgrowths of Prussian theories and 
experiences that have come to prevail in Germany during the past hundred 
years." 

He then discusses, in detail, the particular questions on which, in 
his opinion, these views differ. We must confine ourselves to some of his 
statements which are of special import in this connection. 

It is but natural that the citizen of the United States should be opposed 
to all personal, individual regime in foreign politics and in questions 
relating to war and peace. " The fact that Germany's mobilization was 
ordered three days in advance of the meeting of the Reichstag confounds 
all American ideas and practices about the rights of the people, and the 
proper limits of the executive authority." The citizens of the United 
States, in spite of not being without military history, have never, in all 
their history, organized what could be called a standing or conscripted 
army; and they have seen their country develop economically and cul- 
turally, and from this they judge the importance of the relation betw^een 
military force and national greatness. 

Therefore, they are, as Eliot explains, ■ "strongly opposed to the 
extension of national territory by force contrary to the wishes of the 

5 



population concerned." This opposition he calls "the inevitable result 
of democratic institutions." 

"The American people," he writes, "have been faithful to this demo- 
cratic opinion under circumstances of considerable difficulty, as, for 
example, in withdrawing from Cuba, the rich island which had been 
occupied by American troops during the short war with Spain in 1898; 
and in the refusing to intervene, by force, in Mexico, for the protection 
of American investors when that contiguous country was distracted by 
factional fighting." 

In the light of these events, they judge the former annexations of 
Germany, and, at present, the question of Belgium. Americans are 
strenuously opposed to " the violation of treaties between nations on the 
allegations of military necessity or for any other reason whatsoever. 

"They believe that the progress of civilization will depend in future 
on the general acceptance of the sanctity of contracts or solemn agree- 
ments between nations and on the development, by common consent, 
of international law. . . . 

"The United States has proposed and made more of these agreements 
than any other power, has adhered to them, and profited by them. Under 
one such agreement, made nearly one hundred years ago, Canada and the 
United States have avoided forts and armaments against each other, 
although they have had serious differences of opinion and clashes of 
interest — and the frontier, is 3,000 miles long and, for the greater part, 
without natural barriers. 

" Cherishing the hope that the peace of Europe and the rights of its 
peoples may be secured through solemn compacts which should include 
the establishment of an international court supported by an international 
force, Americans see in the treatment, by the German Government, of 
the Belgium neutralization treaty as nothing but a piece of paper, which 
may be torn up on the ground of military necessity, evidence of the adop- 
tion by Germany of a retrograde policy of the most alarming sort. 

" That single act on the part of Germany — the violation of the neutral 
territory of Belgium — would have determined American opinion in favor 
of the Allies, if it had stood alone. 

"American public opinion, however, has been greatly shocked in other 
ways by the German conduct of the war." Eliot mentions a number of 
methods of warfare, as the dropping of bombs in cities and towns chiefly 
inhabited by non-combatants, the strewing of floating mines, etc. His 
list closes with the enacting of ransoms from cities and towns under the 
threat of destroying them, and the holding of unarmed citizens as hostage 
for the peaceable behavior of a large population, under threat of 
summary execution of the hostages in the case of any disorder. 

To Americans all these methods of warfare seem unnecessary, sure 

6 



to breed hatred and contempt toward the nation that uses them and, 
therefore, to make it difficult for future generations to maintain peace 
and order in Europe. They cannot help imagining the losses civilization 
would suflfer if the Prussians should ever carry into Western Europe the 
kind of war which the Germans are now waging in Belgium and France. 
They have supposed that war was to be waged in this country only 
against public armed forces and their supplies and shelters. 

The statement of Eliot concerning the responsibility of personal 
regime, secret diplomacy and militarism for having brought about the war 
need not be repeated here. Compared with other articles by Americans, 
they are remarkably moderate and careful. "All experienced readers on 
this side of the Atlantic," says Eliot, "are well aware that nine-tenths 
of all the reports they get about the war come from English and 
French sources, and this knowledge makes them careful in their judg- 
ments"; but their fundamental opinion stands firm. 

"American sympathies are with the German people in their sufferings 
and losses, but not with their rulers or with the military class or with 
the professors and men of letters who have been teaching for more than 
a generation that Might makes Right." " That short phrase," according 
to Eliot, outlines "the fundamental fallacy which for fifty years has been 
poisoning the springs of German thought and German policy on public 
affairs. ■ 

" The dread of the Muscovite does not seem to Americans a reasonable 
explanation . . . except so far as irrational panic can be said to 
be an explanation. Against possible, though not probable, Russian 
aggression, a firm defensive alliance of all Western Europe would be 
much better protection than the single might of Germany. 

' ' It were easy to imagine also two new ' buffer States ' — a reconstructed 
Poland and a Balkan Confederation." It is very significant that our 
American critic should say: "As to French 'revenge,' it is the inevitable 
and praiseworthy (sic!) consequence of Germany's treatment of France 
in 1870-71." 

"The great success of Germany, in expanding her commerce during 
the past thirty years, makes it hard for Americans to understand the hot in- 
dignation of the Germans against the British," and could jiot (fail to) justify 
the attempt of Germany to seize supreme power of Europe. His letter ends 
with the words: "Finally, Americans hope and expect that there will 
be no such fatal issue of the present struggle as the destruction or ruin 
of the German nation. On the contrary, they believe that Germany 
will be freer, happier, and greater than ever, when once she has got rid 
of the monstrous Bismarck policies and the Emperor's archaic conception 
of his functions, and has enjoyed twenty years of real peace." 

These last words alone were sufficient to invite protests from the 



advocates of the German cause. His letter, however, also contains many- 
other remarks which could not remain unanswered, and, indeed, they 
were replied to from that quarter; among others, even Mr. Demburg 
(who was in the United States at that time) considered it worth while 
to oppose Mr. Eliot. In a lengthy letter, published in the New York 
Times, of October 5, 1914, he discusses Eliot's political statements in 
detail, and contrasts them with the German viewpoint. 

As I am concerned here, not with the investigation of the truth of 
these statements, but with the characterization of the general attitude, 
and as Dernburg's letter at that time has also been published in Germany, 
it is unnecessary to repeat the former German Colonial Minister's state- 
ments. 

Even he who dissents from Mr. Demburg, must admit that he has 
represented the standpoint of the German Government with great ability; 
perhaps even more ably than this has been done in various publications 
sent out from Berlin itself. After complimenting Eliot, whose authority 
is recognized on both sides of the Atlantic, he exposes some weak points 
in Eliot's letter, and shows that everything of which Eliot accuses the 
Germans had also been committed by the Allies, either at the present 
time or in the past. 

Among the American scholars who have sided with Official Germany, 
I wish to mention another professor, John W. Burgess, of Columbia 
University, sometime exchange-professor at the University of Berlin, 
who has warmly defended Germany in several newspapers and maga- 
zines. He especially shields the Kaiser against the accusation that his 
love for peace has merely been theatrical, and he endeavors to show 
that Germany had been forced to act against Belgium as she did, by the 
attitude of England, and that there had been no violation of a real 
neutrality. 

Burgess lays the blame on England, because Grey had refused to 
assure Belgium of England's neutrality in the prospective war between 
Germany and France, as against the promise of Germany eventually 
to respect the neutrality of Belgium; and, because, on August 4, 1914, 
Grey informed the Belgian Government that his Government expected 
Belgium to resist a pressure exercised by Grermany with all means in its 
power, when a million German soldiers stood at the Belgian frontier, 
and because England promised help to Belgium, which was only given 
much too late and entirely inadequately. 

On another occasion. Burgess expresses the view that Belgium, on 
account of the increase of its population, has outgrown the size of a nation 
whose neutrality had to be guaranteed by its neighbors, and had become 
ripe for self -protection. A summary of his article containing these state- 
ments has been published in the Cologne Gazette, December, 1914. 

8 



Another president of an American university, who has entered upon 
the discussion of the Belgian Question, is Professor John Grier Hibben, 
President of Princeton University, He was aroused by the manifesto 
of the ninety-three German intellectuals, because this manifesto declares 
that "it is not true" that Germany had violated Belgian neutrality, and 
states that it had been "proved" that, on the contrary, France and 
England had resolved on such a trespass, and that Belgium had agreed 
in their doing so. 

Professor Hibben wrote a letter to one of the authors of the mani- 
festo, Professor Eucken, of Jena, whom he knows personally, and published 
this letter in the New York Times, of November 25, 19 14. 

In this letter, Hibben explains, courteously but very definitely, that 
they expected a more scholarly method in the treatment of subjects in 
dispute by men of science: 

"It is naturally to be expected of a group of scholars that where 
reference is made to proof, some citation should be given both of the 
sources of the proof and of its nature. ... In your appeal, however, 
the most important statement, by far, which you piake, and the one 
bearing most intimately upon the honor and integrity of your nation, is 
left without even the attempt to support it, save the bare assertion by 
you and your colleagues. In the interests of a fair understanding of 
Germany's position, I feel that it is incumbent upon you to give us, who 
are under such a deep debt of gratitude to German scholarship in our own 
lives, the opportunity of a full knowledge of all the facts which definitely 
bear on this present situation." 

At the same time, Hibben wrote to a friend of his — the master of 
Christ's College, Cambridge — asking him if he could get some authentic 
material from the British Foreign Office. He received an elaborate 
memorandum of the British Foreign Office, which, of course, emphatically 
denied that statement, and, among other enclosures, a lengthy com- 
munication of the Belgian Minister, Davignon, who attempts to show that 
the German reports of conversations of British officers with high officials 
of the Belgian Ministry of War, concerning the sending of troops into 
Belgium in case of an Anglo-French war against Germany, could not 
prove what the German Government concluded from them. This docu- 
ment also was published in the New York Times. 

Much stronger terms than those of Hibben and Eliot are used by 
the President of the Carnegie Institute in Pittsburgh, Mr. S. Warden 
Church, in his open letter dated November 9, 1914, addressed to Professor 
Fritz Schaper, in Berlin, who had sent him the manifesto. Like the above- 
mentioned, Mr. Church begins with a eulogy on German art, science and 
industry, refers to his friendly relations to a number of prominent Germans, 



and expresses in warm terms the sympathies of the Americans for the 
German people and the German Empire. 

"Why, the very texture of our nation would make us true to Germany 
in all her moral rights, because we have at this moment eight million 
people of German birth or German parentage in our population, and 
these citizens are among the very best in this country." . . . 

" But in the same way, we cherish the people of all other races, ex- 
cept, alas, those from Asia; and, one day, in God's own time, we 
shall grow big enough in a spiritual sense to receive the children of 
Asia with equal hospitality. But we are a cosmopolite nation . . . 
our blood and fibre comprises the whole human family. 

"Our excellent President Wilson . . . has charged us all to main- 
tain an impartial neutrality, and that, I believe, we are earnestly 
striving to do. At the same time, we are likewise earnestly striving 
to find the right and to condemn the wrong, because neutrality can never 
mean indifference." 

" In your letter you say that your enemies 'by their lies and calumnies 
are endeavoring to stain the honor of Germany in her hard struggle for 
existence — in a struggle which has been forced upon her.' . . . But 
Germany need have no fear that American public opinion will be per- 
verted by the lies and calumnies of her enemies. 

"We are all going deeper than the surface in our search for the truth. 
Your letter speaks of Germany as being in a struggle 'which has been 
forced upon her.' That is the whole question; all others are subsidiary. 
If this struggle was forced upon Germany, then indeed she stands in a 
position of mighty dignity and honor, and the whole world should acclaim 
her and succor her, to the utter confusion and punishment of the foes who 
have attacked her. But if this outrageous war was not forced upon her 
would it not follow in the course of reason that her position is without 
dignity and honor, and that it is her foes who should be acclaimed and 
supported to the extreme limit of human sympathy?" 

"I believe, dear Doctor Schaper," Mr. Church continues, "that the 
judgment on this paramount question has been formed. That judgment 
is not based upon the lies and calumnies of the enemies of Germany, nor 
upon the careless publications contained in the newspapers, but upon a 
profound study of- the official correspondence in the case. This corre- 
spondence has been published and disseminated by the respective Gov- 
ernments concerned in the war; it has been reprinted in full in our leading 
newspapers, and with substantial fullness in our magazines, and has 
been republished in a complete pamphlet form in one huge edition after 
another by the New York Times, and again by the American Associa- 
tion for International Conciliation; and the public demand for this in- 



disputable evidence has not yet been satisfied, although many millions 
of our people have read it." 

"I cannot help wondering," Mr. Church writes, "whether they have 
been circulated in Germany ; I cannot help wishing that the German people 
might have the opportunity which my countrymen have had of reading 
these state papers in their fullness." 

This question must induce us .to make a rather melancholy considera- 
tion. Should it be based upon the supposition that these documents 
could not be spread in Germany on account of external difficulties we can 
state that this is not so; the documents in question are accessible to the 
German people; what, however, does not exist in the same measure as 
abroad is the interest in or the demand for them. This is an extremely 
good illustration of the difference between a nation which at least believes 
itself to be self-governing, and a nation that lacks that belief entirely 
up to now. Americans are used to being informed in every way about 
important questions of their politics or to be asked their opinion on them. 
They do not relinquish that habit in important issues, not even before it 
affects them seriously. With us, however, whose very destiny is at stake, 
the desire to study independently the obtainable documents for personal 
judgment is extremely weak. Even people who consider themselves edu- 
cated show very little interest — they still adhere to the habit criticized so 
severely by Lassalle of judging by hearsay. On account of this many 
unpleasant things which by outsiders are attributed to a moral defect of 
Germans may be explained as due to an intellectual mistake. 

One might object that the official publications are unreliable because 
they are altogether deficient and because the governments without excep- 
tion omit everything which might expose their hand in a compromising 
manner. 

This may be fully admitted; the attentive reader of the white, blue, 
yellow, etc., books soon realizes that they withhold much of what would 
be absolutely necessary for the formation of an exhaustive judgment. 
But the reader may obtain more from them than from the Press, or he 
may at least compare with them the reports of the Press, and besides, to 
a certain extent the publications of one government check those of the 
others. That they are only of limited value is no reason why they should 
be ignored. 

It is questionable, however, whether it is justifiable to deduct from them 
a judgment concerning the war such as Mr. Church and some of his coun- 
trymen apparently have done. The deeper motives which have destined 
the actions of the governments are certainly not expressed in diplomatic 
documents of this kind. They merely deal with aspects of formal nature. 
In not having considered this in his letter publi^ed later in pamphlet 

II 



form, Mr. Church and other Americans have committed an unpardonable 
mistake. 

Although articles like that of Mr. Church do not give a final judgment 
as to the guilty party they nevertheless remain important as expressions 
of American sentiment. The President of the Carnegie Institute at Pitts- 
burgh, at any rate, speaks for a large section of his countrymen. The 
attitude of a great majority of the peopl^ of the United States towards the 
methods of the belligerents in so far as the interests of America are affected 
thereby allows no doubt as to this. As far as England is concerned there 
have been only mild apprehensions and theoretical objections, whereas 
German complaints have .been repeatedly refuted rather strongly. For- 
mally neutrality has been carefully maintained, but nothing was done to 
prevent this formal attitude of neutrality from working favorably for 
England and unfavorably for Germany. 

This is shown in an article entitled "The Ship, the Flag, and the 
Enemy," by an American professor of international law and diplomacy 
at Columbia University, Professor Ellery C. Stowell, published in the 
Outlook February 17, 1915, in which he states that by a decision of the 
Orders in Council, the British government had stretched the rule of con- 
traband of war and interfered with the trade of the United States to a 
larger degree than was necfessary for the United States to tolerate. 

"The United States has been patient in the face of these serious inter- 
ferences with her neutral rights because she still had a good market in 
Great Britain and France, and because this country was stirred to its very 
depths by Germany's violation of the most fundamental principles of 
international law by her invasion of Belgium. By maintaining a com- 
plaisant attitude towards these British infringements of the rights of the 
United States, public opinion in this country has given an unconscious 
expression of its real feeling that the nations of the world should co-operate 
with the Allies to enforce? respect for the fundamental principles of inter- 
national law. In applying to the transgressor of international law the 
only effective sanction which exists among the nations as now organized 
— that is, condemnation by the public opinion of the civilized world — the 
transgressor is penalized by a force indirect but none the less crushing." 

It would be futile to deny that similar thoughts have also been playing 
a serious part in forming the decisions of other neutral countries. This 
feeling, however, cannot be changed by simply denying what has 
been done, a method adhered to by the German Chancellor in delivering 
his speech before the Reichstag on August 4, 19 14. How much the 
prestige of Germany has suffered from this very method of procedure is 
clearly shown by the letter of President Church. This criticism would 
not have been half as severe if in their manifesto the professors, authors 



and artists would have followed the example given by Heir v. Bethmann- 
HoUweg. 

With their stereotyped "It is not true" they have merely effected that 
those things they tried to deny have all the more been emphasized and 
criticized. President Church undertakes to do this by referring to the 
White Book of the German Government, various of its circular notes, 
telegrams of the German Emperor; the impression thus created may be 
realized from some quotations of such parts of his letter as can be pub- 
lished under present conditions in Germany: 

In the manifesto of the German professors, among other things this 
had been said: 

"It is not true that we trespassed in neutral Belgium." 

To which the American replies: 

"Have these ninety-three men studied well the letter they have signed? 
Could intellects so superbly trained deliberately certify to such an unwar- 
ranted declaration ? . . . Has any one of my ninety-three honored 
correspondents read the guilty statement made by Imperial Cljancellor 
von Bethmann-HoUweg in the Reichstag on August 4th?" 

He then quotes the well-known statement of Chancellor von Bethmann- 
HoUweg of August 4th, and a less known statement contained in a letter 
of August 15th, addressed to an American press agency, in which he said: 

"Necessity forced us to violate the neutrality of Belgium, but we had 
promised emphatically to compensate that country for all damage 
inflicted." 

It goes without saying that by thus confronting these two statements 
the manifesto of the professors is not only deprived of its force but may 
even be used to prove the absolute lack of good judgment of its authors. 

What the American thinks, moreover, about the happenings in Belgium 
is shown by one of the comparatively mild passages of the open letter 
addressed to Professor Schaper, which reads as follows: 

" ' The wrong that we are committing.' Worst of all, when the desperate 
and rpaddened populace, seeing their sons slain and their homes in flames, 
fired from their windows in the last instinct of nature, your troops, with 
barbaric ferocity, put them to the sword without distinction of age or 
sex! The wrong! Why do you deny it against the shameful acknowledg- 
ment of the official voice of Germany? Oh, Doctor Schaper, if these 
conditions should ever be reversed, and these foreign soldiers should 
march through the streets of Berlin, would not you, would not all of my 
ninety-three correspondents, if they saw their homes battered in ruins 
and their sons dead in the streets, would not they, too, fire from their 
windows «pon the merciless invaders? I am sure I would do so! When 
our American troops were recently dispatched to Mexico, not to conquer, 
not to make war, but to restore peace and good order and the authority 

13 



of law, some of the people of Vera Cruz fired at them from their windows, 
and twenty-three of our young soldiers were killed. At last, they fired 
back at the sharpshooters, but they did not destroy the city, nor kill 
the innocent, and even those among the sharpshooters who were captured 
were not executed, but were admonished to good behavior, and set free. 
I almost wish that America had the power and the will to go into Belgium 
and France, to thrust back these wicked invaders, and restore peace and 
good order and the authority of law there. Such a power is surely going 
to be organized, one of these days, by the humane people of all the world, 
and after that a nation which undertakes to prepare death and hell for 
all mankind . . . will be restrained as a public enemy." 

The statement of the manifesto that the German troops "have not 
treated Louvain brutally," Mr. Church disproves by quoting the following 
words of the Emperor: "My soldiers have destroyed Louvain because of 
the trespass of the people, and the lives and property of many innocent 
persons have been sacrificed. My heart bleeds for Louvain!" 

I quote the following passage which is a typical expression of American 
spirit: 

"And right here, dear Doctor Schaper, may I say that the states- 
manship of Germany has been constructed upon one false principle which 
is mainly responsible for all the woes that this German war has brought 
upon the world? Your military rulers have inculcated in the hearts of 
your people the belief that the German flag must follow Germans in their 
emigration. Hence you claim to require colonies. Then your Emperor 
tells his people that Germany is above all — have you not a song to those 
words? — he teaches them that they are above the rest of our poor humanity, 
and they believe it. Well, there are, as I have said, eight million Germans 
in America who do not require the German flag in order to insure their 
utmost felicity. There are other thousands of them in Canada, in Brazil, 
in Argentina, and elsewhere around the globe, always safe and happy 
without the German flag. When Americans adopt other countries, they 
do not carry our flag with them. Is it not absurd and mischievous, then, 
to hold to the doctrine that Germans henceforth must continue to Uve 
under the German flag, wherever they go? Is not the wild dream of 
Pan-Germanism at the bottom of this great crime? Is there not a higher 
destiny, to be born, perhaps, out of this war, that humanity is greater 
than any race, and that governments in conflict with that destiny must 
perish?" 

As in this passage, the reference to Pan-Germanism repeatedly occurs 
in Mr. Church's letter. This also proves how wrong it is to underestimate 
the Pan-German propaganda. Mr. Church is not quite clear ire his state- 
ments; he talks too much to be taken for an impartial critic; he repre- 
sents, so to speak, "the man in the street," which, however, gives political 



interest to his utterances. For in the politics of a country like the United 
States, the opinions of men of his type are of the greatest influence. Little 
as his utterances may please the German reader, it is more important 
to take cognizance of them than of those which flatter, especially when 
we consider that they are but the views of a negligible minority. 

Let us, however, turn from this author representing the American 
man in the street to an American scholar. An article by Carlton Hayes, pro- 
fessor at Columbia University, published in the December number, 19 14, 
of the Political Science Quarterly, entitled "The War of the Nations," 
impresses us infinitely more agreeably in every respect. Instead of 
pathetic phrases, by which Mr. Church repeatedly distorts even quite 
rational thoughts, we find in Mr. Hayes' article a way of dealing with 
the subject, which presents even the most uncomfortable criticisms 
with such argurhentation and in such forms as not even to excite the 
nerves of the most sensitive reader. 

Mr. Hayes discusses the issues of the present war from the viewpoint 
of the historian, quoting eight books, four of German, three of English 
and only one of American origin. The American book "Men Around the 
Kaiser; the Makers of Modern Germany," concerns us less here. It is 
the work of an able journalist, Mr. Fr. W. Wile, who for many years 
was the representative of the Associated Press Agency, at Berlin. It 
consists of thirty-four vivid sketches of the best-known personalities 
of the present Germany, lacking, however, all criticism of the best-known 
personalities of Germany of to-day. Mr. Hayes treats it adequately, 
letting it give an unintended testimony of itself but passing over all 
expressions of opinion. 

Two of the English books are directly connected with the present 
war: "How the War Began," by the reporter of The Daily Telegraph, 
John Kennedy; and "Why We Are at War," by the six Oxford historians. 
The third, "Germany and England," by the late Professor J. A. Cramb, 
forms a counterpart to the two books of General F. von Bernhardi, pub- 
lished before the outbreak of the war, which aroused more discussion 
in the Anglo-Saxon world than in Germany. The American editions 
of these two books and "Imperial Germany," by Prince von Billow, 
published in New York, 1914, and Professor Hugo Munsterberg's "The 
War and America," designed primarily to change the attitude of Americans, 
are the four works of German origin which Mr. Hayes discusses and to 
which he gives greatest prominence. 

Hayes comments less favorably on the writings of the two English 
scholars, while he speaks with a good deal of appreciation of the Grerman 
military strategist. 

For Miinsterberg had proceeded in a similar way as the ninety-three 
intellectuals, and, therefore, the American refutes courteously but not 

15 



less definitely this question dealt with in such a manner by calling the 
essay: 

"So impressionistic and so replete with errors and misrepresentations — 
of which, by actual count, there are at least twenty-nine — that it is likely 
to do the German cause more harm than good." 

But concerning Bernhardi, he writes: 

"Bernhardi is positively charming. He writes exceedingly well — 
clearly, straightforwardly and frankly, as befits his soldierly calling. 
He knows a good deal of history, is usually logical, and possesses a large 
fund of common sense. Not only does he know thoroughly the modem 
science of warfare, but he knows how to write intelligibly for his lay 
readers. 'How Germany Makes War' is wholly devoted to the technic 
of his subject, and provides a useful key to the German strategy and 
methods in the present war. * Germany and the Next War' — the first 
of the two books to appear in print, and the one that has aroused the 
chief discussion — is at once a frank exposition of the doctrine that might 
makes right and an earnest plea for the shaping of all German institutions, 
political, social, economic, ecclesiastical, and educational, so as to secure 
for the German nation the utmost might. It is difficult, after reading 
Billow's book, to perceive why Bernhardi should not be taken seriously 
in Germany." 

This refers to the fact that German-Americans defending the German 
cause have repeatedly assured the American public that Bernhardi's 
writings were "not taken seriously in Germany." The frank statements 
of this General, of course, could not correspond to the manner of repre- 
sentation by which they intended to win over the anti-militaristic 
Americans, and which had been worked out according to the principle 
to deny even the most self-evident if it seemed unfavorable. But Prince von 
Bulow's book equally does not harmonize with that kind of white- washing. 

Too frequently the predecessor of Bethmann-HoUweg had conducted 
foreign politics according to the taste of Bernhardi, and he was experienced 
enough as to know what could be presented to people capable to judge 
for themselves without making oneself ridiculous. 

He does not therefore attempt- to depict Germany as the innocent 
being which would avoid any friction under any circumstances. Mr. 
Hayes, therefore, continues: "A sincere and logical apostle of Bulow 
would normally be a Bernhardi. And it might be added — this is now 
the main point — a Bernhardi would normally produce a whole crop of 
Billows. If Bernhardi is not taken seriously in Germany, it must be for 
some personal reason that escapes his American reader." • ^ 

The American historian does not overlook the actual facts involved. 
His essay shows that he is at home in German history and historical 
literature, and capable of treating history intelligently; although, in 

l6 



general, being rather concerned with explaining the interrelation and 
the working of political currents, Mr. Hayes does not omit equally to 
emphasize the economic background and the motives resulting there- 
from. 

He refers to the book of the English Social-Liberal, Mr. J. A. Hobson; 
Imperialism, "setting forth with a wealth of supporting facts the doctrine 
that the capitalists and manufacturers of industrial states are ever on the 
outlook for the acquisition by their governments of under-developed 
regions which may provide ready markets for surplus manufactures and 
furnish fields for the favorable investment of surplus capital." " 

If this doctrine is sound — and there appears little to disprove it in the 
history of the nineteenth century — it is but natural that the new industrial 
Germany not only should develop a world-trade but also should seek to 
establish colonies, and that it should find the best part of the colonial field 
embarrassingly pre-empted by older industrial states like Great Britain 
and France. 

On this account the combination of nationalism and militarism, the 
historical product of the method by which the German Empire has been 
built up, had received a new emphasis — according to Mr. Hayes — a plant 
whose wondrously luxuriant growth for forty odd years has culminated in 
the poisonous fruitage of the present war. 

The professor admits, however, that in consequence of the annexation 
of Alsace-Lorraine after 1871 in the mutual competition between Germany 
and France, also from the French side a cause for setting a new pace in the 
race of armaments had been given and the Oxford Apology affords clear 
proof that it was the French "Boulanger Law" of 1886 which had brought 
it about. 

But in the main Mr. Hayes declares that the character of French 
militarism was strictly defensive against the threat of German militarism 
which was inconsistent with a truly liberal form of government — a remark 
which is quite natural for a citizen of the United States. 

It must, however, be admitted that it is those very German authors 
who furnished the incentive for such remarks. This even Prince Biilow em- 
phasizes in his boast that Prussia attained her greatness as a country of 
soldiers and officials, and as such she was able to accomplish the work of 
German union and this she still is to this day. "In the German view," 
says Professor Miinsterberg, "the state is not for the individuals, but the 
individuals for the state," and he, as well as Biilow and, of course, Bem- 
hardi, consider the German people incapable of mastering their political 
destiny. Against this diminution of German intelligence the American 
author advances the particular historical conditions which prevented a 
unification of German unity on a democratic basis. He seems to have 
been greatly surprised that even Prince Biilow should express himself as 

17 



so strongly opposed to the parliamentary form of Government. In view 
of Prince Billow's present political position it is not uninteresting to learn 
what views about the Social- Democrats he has expressed in his book: 

"The Social Democratic movement is the antithesis of the Prussian 
State." 

With its present program and aims it cannot be placed on the same 
level as those parties which take their stand on the existing political system, 
and a decrease in their votes had to be attained, which "under suitable 
guidance" would not be impossible. But let us hear Billow. "For the 
Social -Democratic movement does not only threaten the existence of one 
party or another; it is a danger to the country and the monarchy. This 
danger must be faced and met with a great and comprehensive national 
poUcy, under the strong guidance of clear-sighted and courageous govern- 
ments which, whether amicably or by fighting, can make the parties bow 
to the might of the national idea." 

Mr. Hayes adds to this quotation the following remark: "Imagine 
like language from a twentieth-century Englishman who had been prime 
minister of his country for nine years!" 

But Mr. Hayes finds more in Billow's book; he quotes from it a pro- 
nouncement of nationalistic politics: "It is not the duty of the govern- 
ment in the present time to concede new rights to Parliament, but to rouse 
the political interest of all classes of the nation by means of a vigorous and 
determined national policy, great in its aims and energetic in the means 
it employs." 

Not ineffectively Hayes contrasts Bulow's friendship for Russia with 
the pathetic anti-Russianism of the German intellectuals which, however, 
with the most of them to-day belongs to the past. 

" Not even the ' Slavic Peril ' ruffles Bulow. He implies that the German 
tariff law of 1902, which imposed heavy duties on the importation of 
agricultural products from Russia, increased the economic rivalry between 
Russian and Prussian farmers — possibly an economic interpretation of 
the 'Slavic Peril' — but he is strongly of opinion that no real enmity can 
exist between the governments of two such splendidly conservative states 
as Russia and Germany. In view of the calm attitude of a distinguished 
man like Prince von Biilow, it is well-nigh mirth-provoking to read Pro- 
fessor Miinsterberg's plea to the American people to believe that Germany 
had 'to trust in her sword and in her prayer,' unless the 'half-cultured 
Tartars' and 'the Cossacks with their pogroms were to crush' civiliza- 
tion (pages 9, 30, 98). In fact, Bulow maintains that at least to Asia 
'Russia is justified as a bearer of higher civilization.' " One sees how little 
home-made catch words impress foreigners who know something 

Then Mr. Hayes proceeds to depict from Biilow's book how the pred- 
ecessor of Bethmann-HoUweg glories in the Agadir incident and claims 



that it was himself who inspired the Kaiser "to make that melodramatic 
entry into the Moroccan question." 

He describes him as exulting in the Austrian Annexation of Bosnia and 
Herzegovina, and boasting that German threats of war sufficed to "secure 
Russian acquiescence in that high-handed violation' of the Treaty of 
Berlin." He sees Biilow taking pride in the German " world policy " of 
recent times and remaining remarkably oblivious of the danger of German 
international isolation, as discounting the strength of the Triple Entente 
and insisting that self interest will cause Italy to fight in the next war 
on the side of Germany and Austria. 

Hayes says verbally: 

"From what we now know of the diplomatic developments in July, 
19 14, it would seem as though Bethmann-HoUweg was a most literal 
disciple, as well as official successor, of Prince von Biilow." Apparently 
not a very favorable circumstance in his opinion. 

When dealing with the history of the changes in the groupings of the 
European Powers since Bismarck's retirement, Hayes makes some very, 
characteristic remarks concerning England's departure from her tradi- 
tional policy of "splendid isolation" and the establishment of the entente 
cordiale between England and France. Our German authors, he says, 
generally assign the credit — or the debit — for this change to Edward VII. 
But this he considers entirely mistaken. 

"But that is quite as far-fetched as the conviction in the minds of 
many ill-informed persons that the present war was caused by William II. 
No one individual made the war; nor did any one individual fashion the 
entente cordiale. Edward VII was undoubtedly fond of Paris, and 
Frenchmen liked Edward VII. But the British Government under whose 
auspices the entente was consummated and likewise the Anglo- Japanese 
alliance was formed, was a Unionist government, a government that par- 
ticularly represented the British imperialists — Joseph Chamberlain, Rud- 
yard Kipling, Cecil Rhodes, and even our Professor Cramb — a government 
that prosecuted the Boer War and that was morbidly aware of the signifi- 
cance of German competition in industry, commerce, navy, and colonies. 
It was in the very nature of things that the governing class of Britain 
should discuss with France possible future action against the common 
enemy." 

The mutual distrust had increased, especially on account of the in- 
crease of the German navy since von Tirpitz's appointment and since the 
foundation of the Navy League, with the proclamations of Emperor William 
II. — "The trident must be in Michel's hand," etc. "Neither the fair words of 
conspicuous members of the Liberal government of Great Britain since 1906 
nor the laudatory policy of the German government in sending such con- 
ciliatory diplomats to London as Marschall von Bieberstein or Prince 

* 19 



Lichnowsky proved antidotal to the sentiment of nationalism when applied 
practically to militarism on the seas and to imperialism beyond the seas. " 

"If there be one man who deserves special mention for the newer diplo- 
matic developments, it is not, however, an Englishman but a Frenchman, 
the persevering, tactful Delcass6. It is surprising to find no reference to him 
in the British apologies, and only fugitive mention in the German works. 
Yet he appears on the diplomatic stage of the last fifteen years as a veritable 
Nemesis of Bismarck, taking nice advantage of changed circumstances to 
effect an isolation of Germany almost as complete as the isolation to which 
Bismarck formerly condemned France. 

" Remdining ever a staunch advocate of the Dual Alliance, Delcass6 par- 
ticipated in the negotiations that removed the Fashoda incident of i8q8 from 
the field of national conflict between France and Great Britain and signed the 
various conventions of IQ04 which settled all outstanding colonial disputes 
between the two powers. With consummate statesmanship he weathered 
the storm and stress of 1904-5, when the war between Russia, the ally of 
France, and Japan, the ally of Great Britain, threatened the recently 
inaugurated entente. And the comparatively lenient terms of peace 
imposed upoij Russia by Japan were due quite as much to M. Delcass^ as 
to Mr. Roosevelt. 

In a similar way the Triple Entente had been made possible, which, 
however, was not the only object dear to the heart of Delcass6. " To weaken 
the Triple Alliance by means of improving the relations between Italy and 
France became his secondary purpose, with such successful issue as appears 
in the present war." 

"Naturally the new diplomatic situation caused apprehension in Germany. 
It was no longer a question merely of defending East Prussia and Alsace- 
Lorraine; it was a question of world power," and thus it is precisely Bem- 
hardi who has drawn the logical conclusions from the spirit of the majority 
of the Germans who with increasingly popular support accorded to the 
army bills of 1912 and 1913. 

There is no need for commenting on these statements. Even who 
dissents in essential points will have to admit that it contains as much 
impartiality as may be fairly expected from an historian. It is slighty 
colored but it does not distort facts. At the end of his article Hayes, in 
turning over towards the discussion of political history and philosophy, 
states that both in English and German books there is an inadmittable 
application of the biological theories of evolution as to sociological prob- 
lems, which in Germany is supplemented by that extraordinary cult of 
the State as taught by historians like Treitschke. In exposing the in- 
fluence of Treitschke upon the intellectual class of modem Germany Hayes 
agrees with the Oxford historians who have treated the subject in a special 
chapter. When one sees how Bemhardi constantly quotes Treitschke, 



how Billow starts out with a quotation from Treitschke and Miinsterberg 
also holds fast to the faith of Treitschke, one understands how it is that the 
British and Americans should consider the German mind controlled by the 
doctrines of Treitschke ; and so far as the middle classes are concerned it is 
true that Treitschke's influence has not been small. 

The Oxford historians may, however, according to Hayes, be accused of 
one important fact, i.e., that they altogether leave out of consideration 
the parallel thoughts which may be found in Great Britain and France. 
The exaggerations as to the world mission of one's own nation is "not a 
peculiarity of Germans." In the volume by the late Professor Cramb the 
intellectual atmosphere of Germany is presented as one in which the 
doctrines of Bernhardi found expression. With the exception of a few 
exaggerations it is a creditable presentation of his views. 

" But the amazing thing about Professor Cramb is that he makes no 
attempt to combat these ideas or to maintain that any other ideas should 
find lodgment in England." This English scholar proves to be a nationalist 
of nationalists, a militarist of militarists, an imperialist of imperialists. The. 
late Tory-statesman, Lord »Salisbury, is his ideal, and he bewails among 
liberals now in office in Great Britain "the defect of even second rate 
statesmen." "The friendship of nations," according to Cramb, is "an empty 
name; peace is at best a truce on the battlefield of Time; the old myth or the 
old history of the struggle for existence is behind us, but the struggle for 
power — who is to assign bounds to its empire, or invent an instrument for 
measuring its intensity?" 

" If the German Bernhardi is the mufti of the Religion of Valor," 
says Hayes, "the Englishman Cramb is its dervish. It is Cramb, 
not Bernhardi, who rises to mystical heights." Verbally Cramb writes: 

" In war and the right of war man has a possession which he values above 
religion, above industry and above social comforts ; in war man values the 
power which it affords to life of rising above life, the power which the spirit 
of man possesses to pursue the Ideal. In all life at its height, in thought, 
art and action, there is a tendency to become transcendental; and if we 
examine the wars of England or of Germany in the past we find governing 
these wars throughout this higher power of heroism, or of something, at 
least, which transcends reason." 

To which Hayes, in concluding his essay, remarks: 

"Transcends reason! This is real obscurantism with a vengeance. 
This is the truest reason for the War of the Nations, something that 
'transcends reason.' Until such pseudo-scientific obscurantism be dis- 
pelled from the minds of the so-called intellectual classes of all the nations, 
the end of war is not in sight." 



Whereas the name of this scholar who thus criticizes the English and 
the Germans betrays his British descent it sounds different from the pen 
of an American Journalist whose name is of German descent. I have in 
mind an essay by the lawyer James M. Beck, of New York, which has 
been spread in more than one million copies over England and America 
and also has been translated into various foreign languages. It cannot be 
overlooked as the author is a leader of the New York bar — ^he was assistant 
Attorney-General of the United States. Beck is of German descent, his 
family being from Thiiringen, and shortly before the outbreak of the war 
he was in Germany to visit the places where his ancestors had lived. He 
might be expected, therefore, to be prejudiced in favor of Germany and, 
indeed, as far as the German people are concerned, he shows strong sym- 
pathies with them. Nobody could possibly more highly esteem the 
German achievements in science, art and industry and hold heartier feel- 
ings than he does. Entirely different, however, is his judgment of Ger- 
many's responsibility for the present war. 

Mr. Beck calls his essay "In the Supreme Court of Civilization." He 
assumes that "in this year of disgrace" there exist a supreme court of 
civilization and a recognized international morality which looks upon war 
as a crime against civilization. Which of the two contending powers 
would be held responsible for the "crime of the present war" by such a 
court? He further supposes that the respective governments with their 
White books, Blue books, etc., had submitted their evidence, and analyzes 
this from a lawyer's viewpoint, and states what would be the judgment 
of the court of civilization in "the case of Dual Alliance vs. Triple Entente." 
This is his decision: 

"These are the facts as shown by the record, and upon them, in my 
judgment, an impartial court would not hesitate to pass the following 
judgment: 

" I. That Germany and Austria in a time of profound peace secretly 
concerted together to impose their will upon Europe and upon Servia in 
a matter affecting the balance of power in Europe. Whether in so doing 
they intended to precipitate a European war to determine the mastery of 
Europe is not satisfactorily established, although their whole course of 
conduct suggests this as a possibility. They made war almost inevitable 
by (a) issuing an ultimatum that was grossly unreasonable and dispro- 
portionate to any grievance that Austria had and (b) in giving to Servia, 
and Europe, insufficient time to consider the rights and obligations of all 
interested nations. 

"2. That Germany had at all times the power to compel Austria to 
preserve a reasonable and conciliatory course, but at no time effectively 
exerted that influence. On the contrary, she certainly abetted, and 
possibly instigated, Austria in its unreasonable course. 



"3. That England, France, Italy, and Russia at all times sincerely 
worked for peace, and for this purpose not only overlooked the original 
misconduct of Austria but made every reasonable concession in the hope 
of preserving peace. 

"4. That Austria, having mobilized its army, Russia was reasonably 
justified in mobilizing its forces. Such act of mobilization was the right 
of any sovereign State, and as long as the Russian armies did not cross the 
border or take any aggressive action no other nation had any just right 
to complain, each having the same right 'to make similar preparations. 

"5. That Germany, in abruptly declaring war against Russia for 
failure to demobilize when the other powers had offered to make any 
reasonable concession and peace parleys were still in progress, precipitated 
the war." 

A critical investigation of the methods by which Mr. Beck comes to 
this categorical statement cannot be made here; it is unnecessary to do so, 
because we do not, of course, quote this judgment as a proof but simply 
as a symptom worth our attention, representing as it does the opinions 
of American citizens of German descent, of which Mr. Beck is a typical 
representative, as distinct from Americans of Anglo-Saxon origin. It 
may also be pointed out that Mr. Beck, as a lawyer, essentially sticks to 
the formal side of the question involved, by which method a final judg- 
ment in political matters cannot be obtained. It must be admitted that 
this "justice of civilization" in the case of Austria also mentions its mate- 
rial complaints against Servia and in order to avoid detailed investigation 
simply accepts them as proved. He entirely ignores the conflict of interests 
existing between Austria-Hungary and Germany on one side and Russia 
on the other, concerning the Balkans and Asia Minor. To the reader of 
his publication the procedure of the two first-mentioned nations must 
therefore appear not only legally unjustified but absolutely senseless. 
Germany's action against Belgium and the Belgians he condemns with 
the greatest rigor which, however, is easily explainable by the fact that he 
is a citizen of the. United States. This procedure to him is "simply 
Borgiaism amplified tenthousandfold by the mechanical resources of 
modem war." 

On that issue the supreme court of civilization could have no ground 
for doubt or hesitation. Its judgment would be "speedy and inexorable." 

The conclusions of Mr. Beck, which I can only give in part, are some 
sort of a prophecy: 

"The writer of this article has reached these conclusions with reluc- 
tance, as he has a feeling of deep affection for the German people and 
equal admiration for their ideals and matchless progress. Even more he 
admires the magnificent courage with which the German nation, beset on 
every hand by powerful antagonists, is now defending its prestige as a 

23 



nation. The whole-hearted devotion of this great nation to its flag is 
worthy of the best traditions of the Teutonic race. Nevertheless, this 
cannot alter the ethical truth, which stands apart from any considerations 
of nationality; nor can it affect the conclusion that the German nation has 
been plunged into this abyss. ... 

"In visiting its condemnation, the Supreme Court of Civilization should 
therefore distinguish between the military caste, which precipitated this 
great calamity, and the German, people. . . . 

"War is not merely 'a crime against civilization,' hut also against the 
deceived and misled German people." 

But — and this is Mr. Beck's prediction: 

"One day the German people will know the full truth and then there 
will be a dreadful reckoning for those who have plunged a noble and peace- 
loving nation into this abyss of disaster." 

This implies a little more than we are able to admit at present. But 
even though a just judgment of the spiritual disposition of the German 
people is not to be expected from a native citizen of the United States, 
his prediction nevertheless is interesting in one respect, viz. : in so far as it 
enables us to draw a conclusion as to the sentiment of the rest of that class 
of Americans to which Mr. Beck belongs. Like Mr. Church, he belongs 
to the wealthy bourgeoisie and in spite of this he does not hesitate to look 
for revolutionary outbreaks for vengeance, which in this case, however, 
would be a radicalism not imperilous to its adherents and far off in the future, 
but nevertheless a radicalism which reflects the mind of a community 
which owes its existence to a revolution fought in the name of the procla- 
mation of the rights of men. 

r Far more restricted is the verdict of guilty or unguilty, or more or less 
guilty, of the war of the Americans belonging to societies working for 
international disarmament, extension of international law and arbitration, 
etc. They dislike to see expressions of partial opinion interfering with the 
possibility of the United States acting as peace mediator. They are con- 
cerned with investigating what institutions, general tendencies and con- 
ceptions of law may have caused the war rather than with investigating the 
actions of the various governments or with determining questions of guilt. 
One of the most prominent representatives of .this type of Americans is 
President Nicholas Murray Butler, of Columbia University. He, too, has 
repeatedly expressed his views about the war in the New York Times and 
they have also been published in pamphlets. In one of his articles, pub- 
lished in the New York Times of October i8, 19 14, we find right at the 
beginning these sentences: "If such reserve is necessary in my case it 
seems to me that it also is necessary for the country as a whole. The atti- 
tude of the President has been impeccable. That of the whole American 
press and people should be the same. . . . Even the free expression of 

24 



views criticizing particular details of the war, which might in fact, deserve 
criticism, might destroy one's chance o? future possible usefulness. A 
statement which might be unquestionably true may also be remembered 
to the damage of some important cause later on." 

What decided him to give this advice apparently was the desire to see 
the United States act as peace mediators as soon and as effectively as 
possible. In his pamphlet entitled "The United States of Europe" he 
tries to show that the war might finally lead to the formation of a "Feder- 
ation of the Nations of Europe." The objection that the formation of such 
federation would be impossible on account of racial differences is dis- 
pelled by the experiences of the United States, where Celts and Germans, 
Latins and Slavs live together in peace. 

"The Old World antagonisms," we read, "have become memories. This 
proves that such antagonisms are not mysterious attributes of geography 
or climate, but that they are the outgrowth principally of social and polit- 
ical conditions. . . . 

"Under the influence of the free institutions of the United States, where 
no nationality is suppressed, the hyphen tends to disappear from American 
terminology. The German-American, the Italo-American, the Irish- 
American all become Americans. . . . There is in this a lesson which 
may well be taken seriously to heart by the leaders of opinion in Europe 
when this war ends." 

The hope, however, that this will be done is not too great. At present 
we rather see that many are trying to transfer the racial and other differ- 
ences from the Old World to America in the interests of certain political 
groups. President Butler hopes that Europe will grow wise in the school 
of experience. The losses which Europe is suffering on account of the war 
will lead to a realization of the advantage of substituting for alliances 
of separate groups of nations a Federation of the United States of 
Europe. 

"The cataclysm is so awful that it is quite within the bounds of truth 
to say that on July 31st the curtain went down upon a world which never 
will be seen again. 

"This conflict is the birth-throe of a new European order of things." 

This war will prove to be "the most effective education of 500,000,000 
people which could possibly have been thought of, although it is the most 
costly and most terrible means which could have been chosen." Step by 
step the unification of Europe will be accomplished by the development of 
a new international law. There is the probability of some dislocation of 
territory and some shiftings of sovereignty after the war ends, but these 
will be of comparatively minor importance. 

"Dislocation of territory and the shifting of sovereigns as the result 
of international disagreements are mediseval practices. After this war 

25 



the world will want to solve its problems in terms of the future, not in 
those of the outgrown past." • 

" Conventional diplomacy and conventional statesmanship have very 
evidently broken down in Europe. ... A new type of international 
statesman is certain to arise, who will have a grasp of new tendencies, a 
new outlook upon life." The realization of the interdependence of the 
nations will educate the people to feel internationally, a thought developed 
by President Butler already in 19 12 in his interesting book, "The Inter- 
national Mind," and now summarized in the categorical imperative 
"Learn to Think Internationally." 

All these are excellent thoughts, whose realization can be desired and 
must be promoted. We cannot deny, however, that the American appar- 
ently underestimates the obstacles which exist in our old Europe, with its 
many historical traditions and deeprooted prejudices. We fear that among 
the average Germans there are but few who would subscribe to the follow- 
ing sentences of President Butler: "The nation whose frontier bristles 
with bayonets and with forts is like the individual with a magazine pistol 
in his pocket. Both make for murder. Both in their hearts really mean 
murder. The world will be better when the nations invite the judgment 
of their neighbors and are influenced by it. . . . 

"One of the controlling principles of a democratic State is that its 
military and naval establishnfents must be completely subservient to the 
civil power." 

The attitude of President Butler is expressed in his belief that the 
belligerent nations of Europe wanted to convince the United States of the 
righteousness of their cause because of their conviction that "we are the 
possessors of sound political ideas." Europe has realized that the United 
States exercise a great moral force in the World which among other things 
has been increased because the United States have repealed the Panama 
Canal Tolls Exemption Act in June, 19 13. "Who would have cared for 
our opinion," he asks, "in the matter of a treaty violation if, for mere 
financial interest or from sheer vanity, we ourselves had violated a solemn 
treaty?" 

Five months of observation will have taught the President of Columbia 
University a different lesson. European thought to-day is controlled by 
" Real-Politik " above everything else, and whether a nation has acted 
morally or immorally as long as she has served her interests is not a matter 
of consideration. It can only affect us melancholically tha't Butler con- 
cludes: 

"When Congress repealed the Panama Canal Tolls Exemption Act it 
marked an epoch in the history of the United States. This did more than 
the Spanish war, than the building of the Panama Canal, or than anything 
else I can think of, to make us a true world power. 

26 



"As a nation we have kept our word when sorely tempted to break it. 
We made Cuba independent, we have not exploited the Philippines, we 
have stood by our word as to Panama Canal tolls. 

"In consequence we are the first moral power in the world to-day. 
Others may be first with armies, still others first with navies. But we have 
made good our right to be appealed to on questions of national and inter- 
national morality. That Europe is seeking our favor is the acknowledg- 
ment of this fact by the European nations and their tribute to it." 

In a world in which foreign politics and moral interests are superseded 
by interests of power this is certainly true, and happy the nation which 
can show such a record. One would also wish that another word of Presi- 
dent Butler will remain true. In a second pamphlet "The Preparedness 
of America," published in December, 19 14, Butler opposes the movement 
which demands that the United States prepare in view of the possibility 
of becoming involved in the European war. He writes: 

"Our type of true defence is the undefended boundary line between the 
United States and Canada and not a heavily fortified and blood-stained 
line like that running from Belfort to Liege." 

The main agitator for the preparedness of the United States is ex- 
President Theodore Roosevelt. In his recent articles published by Mur- 
ray in London under the title "America and the World War" Roosevelt 
even demands an aggressive action on the part of the United States in 
order to fight for the sanctity of treaties defied by the Central powers. 
Two quotations from his book characterize his attitude: 

"The kind of Neutrality which seeks to preserve 'peace' by timidly 
refusing to live up to our plighted word and to denounce and take action 
against such wrong as that committed in the case of Belgium is un- 
worthy of an honorable and powerful people. . . . Peace is ardently to be 
desired but only as the handmaid of righteousness; the only peace of per- 
manent value is the peace of righteousness. There can be no such peace 
until well-behaved, highly civilized small nations are protected from 
oppression, subjugation," and somewhere else he says: 

"From the international standpoint the essential thing to do is effect- 
ively to put the combined power of civilization back of the collective 
purpose of civilization — to secure justice. This can be achieved only by 
a World League for the peace of righteousness which would guarantee to 
enforce by the combined strength of all the nations the decrees of a com- 
petent and impartial court against any recalcitrant and offending nation. 
Only in this way will treaties become serious documents." 

The writings of Beck and Church prove that the ambitious Mr. Roose- 
velt, always inclined to all sorts of adventure, meets very cleverly a special 
part of American sentiment which to-day is very strong. This ought to 
impress all those of us who disagree with the attitude of strict neutrality, 

27 



as maintained by President Wilson, who constantly is attacked by Roose- 
velt. Butler, on the other hand, shows that armaments would not only 
be deplorable but that they would mean the certainty of national disaster. 
They are unnecessary, he says, for not one of the belligerents will be able 
to attack any other country for a generation if it wanted to : 

"The European nations that had on so elaborate a scale prepared for 
war have gotten exactly what they prepared for, with the result that they 
are impoverishing themselves and wrecking their several civilizations for 
centuries to come, while no two of them can agree as to what the war is 
about, or what is at stake or what caused it." 

The United States have no reason to follow the footsteps of Europe 
but every reason not to enter upon the competition in armaments. When 
we "begin to measure our strength in terms of military and naval units 
against the military equipment of the nations of Europe, we have entered 
upon the fatal path of militarism." And this he considers the great 
danger which must be avoided. It must not be forgotten that militarism 
has its origin in a state of mind and that in reality it is a state of mind. 
Shall we never learn the full meaning of Lowell's fine line and cease 
trying to 

"Attempt the Future's portal with the Past's blo<3d-rusted key?" 
an advice which to a far higher degree should be followed by non- Americans! 



28 




International Conciliation 

Published monthly by the 
American Association for International Conciliation. 
Entered as second class matter at New York, N. Y. , 
Postoffice, February 23, 1909. under act of July 16, 1894 



INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION 

BY 
JOHN BA5SETT MOORE 

An Address Delivered Before the Twenty-first Annual Lake Mohonk Conference 

^ r- 



. . ..4 



THE OUTLOOK FOR INTERNATIONAL LAW 

BY 
ELIHU ROOT 

An Address Delivered Before the Ninth Annual Meeting of the American Sodety 
of International Law 

MARCH, 1916 

No. 100 

American Association for International Conciliation 

Sub-Station 84 (407 West 1 17th Street) 

New York Gty 

1916 



It is the aim of the Association for International Con- 
ciliation to awaken interest and to seek co-operation 
in the movement to promote international good will. 
This movement depends for its ultimate success upon 
increased international* understanding, appreciation, 
and sympathy. To this end, documents are printed 
and widely circulated, giving information as to the 
progress of the movement and as to matters connected 
therewith, in order that individual citizens, the news- 
paper press, and organizations of various kinds may 
have accurate information on these subjects readily 
available. 

It is the aim of the Association to avoid, as far as 
possible, contentious questions, and in particular 
questions relating. to the domestic policy of any given 
nation. Attention is to be fixed rather upon those 
underl]nng principles of international law, international 
conduct, and international organization, which must 
be agreed upon and enforced by all nations if peaceful 
civilization is to continue and to be advanced. A list 
of publications will be found on page 30. 



INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION 

The Lake Mohonk Conference on International Arbi- 
tration assembles this year in the midst of the greatest 
catastrophe that has befallen the world since the close of 
the Napoleonic Wars a hundred years ago. This unfor- 
tunate situation inculcates the importance of facing can- 
didly the realities of life and the grave problems which 
they involve. The tendency of the human mind, running 
in advance of results, to treat as an accomplished fact 
that which it desires to bring about, may often exert in 
the affairs of life a useful and helpful influence; but 
when, following the "illusions of hope," it bids us close 
our eyes to actual conditions and to rely in comfortable 
security upon safeguards that either do not exist or are 
so defective as to be practically non-existent, it may 
become a peril as well as a hindrance to wise and essen- 
tial effort. 

We do not meet today for the purpose of discussing 
the rights or the wrongs of the present appalling conflict. 
It is upon us, and nothing that we can say can allay or 
retard it. But, apart from the merits of the cause of any 
particular belligerent, it does teach us the necessity of 
something in the direction of international cooperation 
more far-reaching than has heretofore been tried, if the 
part which war has played in international affairs is to be 
appreciably diminished. I say international cooperation ; 
for, after all is said and done, there is n6 device by which 
peace can be preserved unless nations cooperate in mak- 

3 



ing it effective. Sixteen years ago, when the nations 
agreed to the establishment of the permanent Court at The 
Hague, it seemed to many that the millennium had come ; 
and they certainly were justified in thinking that a great 
step forward had been taken. Gradually the whole world 
was brought into the arrangement ; but, with the lapse of 
time, it became apparent that, although a "world court" 
had been established, the spirit of cooperation was lack- 
ing to make it thoroughly effective. Wars broke out 
without resort to it and when it was sought to render 
the resort obligatory, nations were found to be indisposed 
to bind themselves to submit questions of serious im- 
portance, such as were likely to produce a conflict. 

In view of the abundant, constant warnings which his- 
tory furnishes against relying upon any one device for 
the prevention of war, I propose today to make a general 
survey of the international situation with a view to ascer- 
tain the fundamental conditions with which, in our 
efforts after peace, we are obliged to deal, and the nature 
of the measures which we must devise in order to meet 
them. 

The record of man on earth, as we know it, relates to 
the activities of various tribes, peoples and nations, and, 
until a comparatively recent time, is concerned chiefly 
with their wars one with another. During the past two 
hundred years a marked development had taken place in 
the conception of nationality. International law, since it 
came into systematic existence, has assumed as its foun- 
dation the principle of the independence and equality of 
nations. This principle, as expounded by Grotius and 
his followers, represented a progressive and enlightened 
sentiment, which was intended to assure^ even to the 
feeblest member of the family of nations the preserva- 

4 



tion of its rights. As the great Swiss pubhcist, Vattel, 
eloquently declared : "Power or weakness does not in 
this respect produce any difference. A dwarf is as much 
a man as a giant ; a small republic is no less a sovereign 
state than the most powerful kingdom." Or, to employ 
the graphic phrase of our own John Marshall : "Russia 
and Geneva have equal rights." 

But, with the principle of independence and equality, 
there was associated another principle antagonistic and 
potentially fatal to it. This was the principle that every 
independent nation had the right to declare war, for any 
cause deemed by it to be sufficient; and that, having de- 
clared war, it immediately acquired all the rights per- 
taining to that condition, including the right of conquest, 
under which the strongest power, even though it were 
the aggressor, might lawfully proceed to destroy or ab- 
sorb its adversary. 

It was for the purpose, among others, of limiting the 
exercise of this right and of maintaining the independ- 
ence of nations, that the European Concert, so often 
superficially criticized, came into being. This Concert, 
however, never undertook to place any theoretical limita- 
tion upon the rights of war. It represented merely a 
union of nations, and incidentally of their forces, to the 
end that the balance of power in the existing system 
should not be unduly disturbed. At the present day, the 
world is groping about for something beyond this, for a 
measure more radical, which will establish a reign of 
law among nations similar to that which exists within 
each individual state. 

It is evident that the first condition of the establish- 
ment of such an international system is the regulation of 
the conception of nationality. Exaggerated to the point 

S 



where it either subordinates human rights to supposed 
national interests, or regards the interests of humanity as 
being capable of realization only through a particular na- 
tional agency, there can be no doubt that this conception 
directly incites to the transgression of the bounds of law 
and of justice. This tendency, often aggravated by con- 
fused declamatory, transcendentalist teachings evolved 
from the emotions rather than from the observation of 
existing facts, has not been confined to any one nation 
or to any particular age. It has nowhere been more 
strongly manifested than among the ancient Hebrews, 
who, regarding themselves as the "chosen people of 
God," conceived themselves to be merely the instrument 
of the Almighty in obliterating their enemies. It was in 
the 137th Psalm, in the phrase "Happy shall he be that 
taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones," that 
Grotius found an unquestionable proof that the right of 
war permitted the slaughter of women and infants with 
impunity. Nor can it be denied that, in a milder form, 
the doctrine of the "manifest destiny" of certain nations 
to extend their boundaries, by force if necessary, is tinc- 
tured with the same thought. 

Nevertheless, when we come to analyze the conception 
of nationality, as expounded by philosophers, we find that 
its principal ingredients are largely imaginary. We have 
often been told, in phraseology supposed to be highly 
scientific, that the "nation" is an ethnographic unity 
within a geographic unity, or words to that effect. Ex- 
cept in remote, restricted areas, inhabited by savage 
tribes, this combination of conditions can scarcely be said 
fully to exist. It is found least of all in some of the most 
enlightened and most progressive countries of today, 
such as Switzerland ; and with the constant movements 

6 



of population resulting from improved means of trans- 
portation, is less and less likely to continue anywhere as 
a stationary condition. Tried by such a theory, or defi- 
nition, what should be said of our own United States, 
with its admixture of races from all quarters of the globe ? 
And as for the element of geographic unity, it suffices 
to say that the applications of steam and of electricity 
have rendered it an anachronism. 

Assuming, then, that our goal is the establishment 
among nations of a reign of law, in such sense that each 
nation is subject to the law, the fundamental object 
which it is essential to accomplish is to limit the present 
unrestricted right of the individual nation to declare war 
and incidentally to acquire the right of conquest. This 
object would be attained by establishing the principle that 
a nation before declaring war upon another must submit 
its grievance to the judgment of its associated nations, 
and that without such submission it should not be re- 
garded as acquiring the right of conquest. 

In this relation it is interesting to refer to one of the 
transactions of the First International American Confer- 
ence, which was held in Washington in 1889- 1890. On 
April 18, 1890, the committee on general welfare, acting 
upon a motion submitted by the Argentine Republic and 
Brazil, recommended the adoption of resolutions declar- 
ing that the principle of conquest should not thereafter 
be recognized as admissible under American public law ; 
that in the future cessions of territory should be void if 
made under threats of war or in the presence of an 
armed force; that a nation from which such cessions 
should be exacted might always demand that the question 
of their validity be submitted to arbitration ; and that any 
renunciation of the right to have recourse to arbitration 

7 



should be null and void under all circumstances. This 
report was subsequently taken up in connection with the 
project of an arbitration adopted by the Conference. By 
this project all questions were to be submitted to arbitra- 
tion except that of national independence, and even in 
this case arbitration was declared to be obligatory upon 
the adversary power. Combining this project of a treaty 
with the proposed abolition of the right of conquest, Mr. 
Blaine presented a plan upon which the Conference 
unanimously agreed, with the exception of one delega- 
tion that abstained from voting. Under this plan it was 
agreed that the principle of conquest should not, during 
the continuance of the treaty of arbitration, be recog- 
nized as admissible under American public law. 

It may be doubted whether the far-reaching signifi- 
cance of the plan thus outlined was at the time fully 
grasped. The plan was in reality in advance of the times. 
Jt was not ratified by the governments concerned, and 
never became effective. But it clearly presented the fun- 
-damental principle upon which nations must unite if they 
would place their relations upon a thoroughly legal 
basis. 

Far more difficult than the statement of the object to 
be attained is the formulation and application of measures 
to carry it into effect. Here again it is of the first im- 
portance to grasp in its details the problem with which 
we are dealing. During the past ten years we have, for 
instance, often been assured that what the world needs is 
an arbitration tribunal and an "international police" to 
enforce its awards. This statement seems to disclose 
both a misconception of fact and an incomplete grasp of 
conditions. The misconception of fact is the supposi- 
tion that the evil from which the world today suffers is 

8 



the disregard of arbitral awards. In reality, arbitral 
awards have been remarkably well observed, in spite of 
the indulgence now and then lately shown to the vicious 
notion, by which the domestic administration of justice 
is so much enfeebled and impaired, that every sentence of 
a judicial tribunal ought to be subject to some kind of an 
appeal. The actual problem with which the world is 
confronted is how to induce nations to accept not the 
results but the process of arbitration. 

The proposal for an "international police" requires a 
more extended examination. As originally advanced, it 
seems to have contemplated the maintenance by a certain 
number of the larger powers of an international force 
for the purpose of correcting or restraining the miscon- 
duct of smaller or weaker states. Even in this restricted 
form it involves certain assumptions the correctness of 
which is by no means self-evident ; for, while the posses- 
sion of physical strength is by no means an invariable 
proof of virtue or of disinterested devotion to the cause 
of justice, it is also true that some of the finest examples 
of national rectitude and enlightenment are to be found 
in the conduct of the smaller states. 

When so expanded as to embrace all nations, the un- 
derlying idea of an international police appears to be that 
of a force to compel all states, without regard to their 
strength or w^eakness, to observe international law ; and, 
when so extended, the proposal is at once seen to be 
closely connected with the question of the limitation, or 
of the development, as the case may be, of national arma- 
ments. How large a force, it may be asked, would have 
to be maintained in order effectually to hold in check any 
of the great powers of Europe, if their national arma- 
ments were continued on the scale of the past twenty-five 

9 



years? History tells us that the force of a great united 
nation is exceedingly difficult to overcome. Without re- 
curring to earlier examples, it suffices to point to the fact 
that for almost twenty-three years preceding the close of 
the Napoleonic Wars, France fought and at times seemed 
to vanquish the vast European combination formed 
against her, and yet in the end emerged from the contest 
with her boundaries little diminished. It is manifest that 
an international force, organized to assure the preserva- 
tion of peace, would have to be, as against any individual 
national organization, far stronger, in numbers and in 
equipment, than anything we are accustomed to think 
of under the term "police." It would need to be prac- 
tically overwhelming, unless it were merely to have the 
effect of the great armaments of Europe today in in- 
volving in hostilities a larger number of men and making 
armed conflict more bloody and more costly. And it is 
equally manifest that, unless national armaments were 
greatly reduced, a proportionate contribution to such an 
international force would require on the part of the 
United States a development of its military resources far 
beyond that which has usually been contemplated. I 
mention this not as an argument but only as a fact. 

These considerations are equally important and vital, 
whether the force which it is proposed to employ is to 
be in a strict sense international, or whether it is to be 
composed of the forces of united nations, combined for 
the attainment of a common end. In the present state 
of the world, the latter conception would appear to be 
simpler and more immediately practicable. But, viewed 
in either aspect, continuous union and cooperation would 
be the first and essential requisite of the success of the 
plan. 

10 



The fact cannot be too often or too strongly stated 
that, for the preservation of order, national or inter- 
national, we cannot rely upon force alone. Force is not 
an end; it is merely the means to an end. Situations 
often arise in which the resort to forcible measures tends 
to provoke conflict rather than to prevent it. Economic 
pressure may in many instances be far more efficacious 
than attempts at direct coercion ; nor are proofs wanting 
that forbearance may sometimes be more effective than 
either, even leading to the eventual acceptance of wise 
solutions which were in the heat of controversy rejected. 
We must not forget that, back of all effort, moral or 
physical, lie the feelings, the sentiments, the aspirations 
of humanity ; and it is only by the organization of forces,. 
moral and physical, in such manner as to assure justice 
and contentment through cooperation, that widespread 
outbreaks of violence can be avoided. 

In order to attain this end, it would be necessary to- 
provide for the employment of three different kinds of 
agencies, which may be designated by the titles Arbitra- 
tion, Conciliation, Legislation. We may briefly consider 
them in this order. 

I. Arbitration. — This represents the judicial process. 
As defimed in The Hague Convention for the Pacific Set- 
tlement of International Disputes, "international arbitra- 
tion has for its object the settlement of differences be- 
tween states by judges of their own choice, on the basis 
of respect for law." With the object of facilitating the 
"immediate recourse" to this process, the convention pro- 
vided for the establishment of a "Permanent Court of 
Arbitration, accessible at all times" and proceeding in 
accordance with definite rules. This court was duly or- 
ganized. It is still in existence. It has dealt with a 



number of cases, some of which were important, and its 
decisions have been carried into effect. Proposals have 
been made for its improvement or alteration, as well as 
for the establishment of another or additional tribunal 
differently constituted. Into the discussion of these pro- 
posals it is not my purpose now to enter. Some criti- 
cisms of the present court have, as in the case of its 
decision upon the preferential claim of the blockading 
powers in Venezuela, disclosed a defective appreciation 
either of the law and the facts or of the proper functions 
of a judicial tribunal. But, speaking for myself indi- 
vidually, I would support any measure that tended to 
render the resort to international arbitration easier, more 
general, and more efficacious. 

2. Conciliation. — The fact is generally admitted that 
for the preservation of peace and order judicial methods 
will not alone suffice. Even though it be demonstrable 
that international arbitration may .be carried, because it 
has been carried, far beyond the limits set in some of our 
general treaties of arbitration, it is nevertheless true that 
the judicial process is not adequate to all the needs of 
international life. It often happens that differences can 
be effectually adjusted only by the removal of their 
causes, and this may require the exercise of a power and 
discretion beyond the application of existing rules. The 
exercise of such a power would properly be vested in a 
tribunal of conciliation. 

Under the supervision of such a body there could be 
carried on the process of investigation which is properly 
entrusted to joint commissions, and which may be essen- 
tial to the success of arbitration as-well as of conciliation. 
With this object in view, provision was made in The 
Hague Convention for the Pacific Settlement of Inter- 

12 



national Disputes for mediation and for international 
commissions of inquiry. Investigation by means of 
joint commissions formed a conspicuous part of the un- 
ratified treaties concluded by the United States in 191 1 
with France and Great Britain. It also forms the chief 
means provided for in the so-called peace pacts con- 
cluded during the past two years between the United 
States and various powers; for, although these agree- 
ments have often been criticized as unlimited treaties of 
arbitration, they do not in fact provide for arbitration at 
all, but merely require an investigation and report, and 
expressly reserve to the contracting parties, when the 
report shall have been received, full liberty of action. 

The defect in all measures for investigation and report 
is one which it is difficult to meet by a prior formal agree- 
ment. This is the case of a continuing injury which one 
nation may seek to inflict upon another, an injury of such 
a nature that human interests or human feelings are not 
likely to tolerate its continuous imposition for a con- 
tinuous space of time. Such a situation might have to be 
met by a modus Vivendi, and the attempt to employ such 
an expedient would again bring us face to face with the 
fact that, without the spirit of cooperation and the will- 
ingness to observe the limitations of law and justice, the 
use of force cannot be avoided. 

3. Legislation. — In the formation of an international 
organization, provision for the definition and improve- 
ment of the rules of international intercourse would form 
an important and essential part. A step in this direction 
was taken in the Peace Conference at The Hague, but it 
fell far short of what is necessary to make the legislative 
process effective. This is particularly the case in respect 
of the power to enact rules of law. In The Hague Con- 

13 



ferences unanimity was necessary to the establishment of 
a rule binding on all the powers ; and even in the treaties 
relating to the conduct of war, it was provided that they 
should not be obligatory unless all the parties to the par- 
ticular conflict had ratified them. It is probably true, 
that, if there were allowed to each independent state, as 
has heretofore been done, a single vote, a mere majority 
rule would be quite unacceptable. While I am not so 
much disturbed, as many persons seem to be, by the 
apprehension that small states would be found system- 
atically to unite against larger states, yet the rule of a 
mere numerical majority of nations would necessarily 
meet with strong opposition. The requirement of una- 
nimity must, however, be done away with before an 
international law-making power can be effectually estab- 
lished, and there should be no difficulty in abolishing it, 
when the principle, so essential to international organiza- 
tion, is once accepted, that no nation is so high or so 
powerful as to be above the law. 



X4 



THE OUTLOOK FOR INTERNATIONAL 
LAW 



Opening Address by Elihu Root as President of the 
American Society of International Law at the 
Ninth Annual Meeting in Washington, De- 
cember 28, 1915. 

Gentlemen of the Society: 

The incidents of the great war now raging affect so 
seriously the very foundations of international law that 
there is for the moment but little satisfaction to the stu- 
dent of that science in discussing specific rules. Whether 
or not Sir Edward Carson went too far in his recent 
assertion that the law of nations has been destroyed, it is 
manifest that the structure has been rudely shaken. The 
barriers that statesmen and jurists have been construct- 
ing laboriously for three centuries to limit and direct the 
conduct of nations toward each other, in conformity to 
the standards of modern civilization, have proved too 
weak to confine the tremendous forces liberated by a 
conflict which involves almost the whole military power 
of the world and in which the destinies of nearly every 
civilized state outside the American continents are 
directly at stake. 

The war began by a denial on the part of a very great 
power that treaties are obligatory when it is no longer 
for the interest of either of the parties to observe them. 

15 



/ 



The denial was followed by action supported by approxi- 
mately one-half the military power of Europe and is 
apparently approved by a great number of learned stu- 
dents and teachers of international law, citizens of the 
countries supporting the view. This position is not an 
application of the doctrine sic stantibus rebus which jus- 
tifies the termination of a treaty under circumstances not 
contemplated when the treaty was made so that it is no 
longer justly applicable to existing conditions. It is that 
under the very circumstances contemplated by the treaty 
and under the conditions for which the treaty was in- 
tended to provide the treaty is not obligatory as against 
the interest of the contracting party. 

This situation naturally raises the question whether 
executory treaties will continue to be made if they are 
not to be binding, and requires consideration of a system 
of law under which no conventional obligations are 
recognized. The particular treaty which was thus set 
aside was declaratory of the general rule of international 
law respecting the inviolability of neutral territory; and 
the action which ignored the treaty also avowedly vio- 
lated the rule of law ; and the defense is that for such a 
violation of the law the present interest of a sovereign 
state is justification. It is plain that the application of 
such a principle to a matter of major importance at the 
beginning of a long conflict must inevitably be followed 
by the setting aside of other rules as they are found to 
interfere with interest or convenience ; and that has been 
the case during the present war. Many of the rules of 
law which the world has regarded as most firmly estab- 
lished have been completely and continuously disre- 
garded, in the conduct of war, in dealing with the prop- 
erty and lives of civilian non-combatants on land and 

i6 



sea and in the treatment of neutrals. Alleged violations 
by one belligerent have been asserted to justify other 
violations by other belligerents. The art of war has been 
developed through the invention of new instruments of 
destruction and it is asserted that the changes of condi- 
tions thus produced make the old rules obsolete. It is 
not my purpose at this time to discuss the right or wrong 
of these declarations and actions. Such a discussion 
would be quite inadmissible on the part of the presiding 
officer of this meeting. I am stating things which, 
whether right or wrong, have unquestionably happened, 
as bearing upon the branch of jurisprudence to which 
this Society is devoted. It seems that if the violation of 
law justifies other violations, then the law is destroyed 
and there is no law ; that if the discovery of new ways of 
doing a thing prohibited justifies the doing of it, then 
there is no law to prohibit. The basis of such assertions 
really is the view that if a substantial belligerent interest 
for the injury of the enemy come in conflict with a rule 
of law, the rule must stand aside and the interest must 
prevail. If that be so it is not difficult to reach the con- 
clusion that for the present at all events in all matters 
which affect the existing struggle, international law is 
greatly impaired. Nor can we find much encourage- 
ment to believe in the binding force of any rules upon 
nations which observe other rules only so far as their 
interest at the time prompts them. Conditions are al- 
ways changing and a system of rules which ceases to bind 
whenever conditions change should hardly be considered 
a system of law. It does not follow that nations can no 
longer discuss questions of right in their diplomatic inter- 
course, but upon such a basis it seems quite useless to 
appeal to the authority of rules already agreed upon as 

17 



just and right and their compeUing effect because they 
have been already agreed upon. 

When we recall Mansfield's familiar description of 
international law as "founded upon justice, equity, con- 
venience, the reason of the thing, and confirmed by long 
usage," we may well ask ourselves whether that general 
acceptance which is necessary to the establishment of a 
rule of international law may be withdrawn by one or 
several nations and the rule be destroyed by that with- 
drawal so that the usage ceases and the whole subject to 
which it relates goes back to its original status as matter 
for new discussion as to what is just, equitable, con- 
venient and reasonable. 

When this war is ended, as it must be some time, and 
the foreign offices and judicial tribunals and publicists 
of the world resume the peaceable discussion of inter- 
national rights and duties, they will certainly have to 
consider not merely what there is left of certain specific 
rules, but also the fundamental basis of obligation upon 
which all rules depend. The civiHzed world will have to 
determine whether what we call international law is to 
be continued as a mere code of etiquette or is to be a real 
body of laws imposing obligations much more definite 
and inevitable than they have been heretofore. It must 
be one thing or the other. Although foreign offices can 
still discuss what is fair and just and what is expedient 
and wise, they can not appeal to law for the decision of 
disputed questions unless the appeal rests upon an obli- 
gation to obey the law. What course will the. nations 
follow ? 

Vague and uncertain as the future must be, there is 
some reascwi to think that after the terrible experience 
through which civilization is passing there will be a ten- 

i8 



dency to strengthen rather than abandon the law of na- 
tions. Whatever the result may be, the world will have 
received a dreadful lesson of the evils of war. The sac- 
rifice of millions of lives, millions homeless and in 
poverty, industry and commerce destroyed, overwhelm- 
ing national debts, — all will naturally produce a strong 
desire to do something that will prevent the same thing 
happening again. 

While the war has exhibited the inadequacy of inter- 
national law, so far as it has yet developed, to curb those 
governmental policies which aim to extend power at all 
costs, it has shown even more clearly that little reliance 
can be placed upon unrestrained human nature, subject 
to specific temptation, to commit forcible aggression in 
the pursuit of power and wealth. It has shown that 
where questions of conduct are to be determined under no 
constraint except the circumstances of the particular case 
the acquired habits of civilization are weak as against the 
powerful, innate tendencies which survive from the 
countless centuries of man's struggle for existence 
against brutes and savage foes. The only means yet dis- 
covered by man to limit those tendencies consist in the 
establishment of law, the setting up of principles of 
action and definite rules of conduct which can not be 
violated by the individual without injury to himself. 
That is the method by which the wrongs naturally flow- 
ing from individual impulse within the state have been 
confined to narrow limits. That analogy, difficult as it 
is to maintain in view of the differences between the 
individual who is subject to sovereignty and the nation 
which is itself sovereign, indicates the only method to 
which human experience points to avoid repeating the 
present experience of these years of war consistently 

19 



with the independence of nations and the liberty of indi- 
viduals. The Pax Romana was effective only because 
the world was subject to Rome. The Christian Church 
has been urging peace and good-will among men for nine- 
teen centuries, and still there is this war. Concerts of 
Europe and alliances and ententes and skilful balances of 
power all lead ultimately to war. Conciliation, good-will, 
love of peace, human sympathy, are ineffective without 
institutions through which they can act. Only the possi- 
bility of establishing real restraint by law seems to re- 
main to give effect to the undoubted will of the vast 
majority of mankind. 

In the effort to arrange the affairs of the world so that 
they will not lead to another great catastrophe men will 
therefore turn naturally towards the re-establishment 
and strengthening of the law of nations. How can that 
be done? How can the restraints of law be made more 
effective upon nations? 

It is not difficult to suggest some things which will tend 
in that direction. 

Laws to be obeyed must have sanctions behind them; 
that is to say, violations of them must be followed by 
punishment. That punishment must be caused by power 
superior to the law breaker; it can not consist merely 
in the possibility of being defeated in a conflict with an 
enemy ; otherwise there would be no law as between the 
strong and the weak. Many states have grown so great 
that there is no power capable of imposing punishment 
upon them except the power of collective civilization out- 
side of the offending state. Any exercise of that power 
must be based upon public opinion. It can not rest 
merely upon written agreements or upon the accidental 
dictates of particular interests. It must proceed from 

20 



i 



general, concurrent judgment and condemnation. When 
that exists punishment may be inflicted either by the 
direct action of governments, forcible or otherwise, or by 
the terrible consequences which come upon a nation that 
finds itself without respect or honor in the world and 
deprived of the confidence and good-will necessary to the 
maintenance of intercourse. Without such an opinion 
behind it no punishment of any kind can be imposed ^or 
the violation of international law. 

For the formation of such a general opinion, however, 
questions of national conduct must be reduced to simple 
and definite form. Occasionally there is an act the char- 
acter of which is so clear that mankind forms a judgment 
upon it readily and promptly, but in most cases it is easy 
for the wrongdoer to becloud the issue by assertion and 
argument and to raise a complicated and obscure contro- 
versy which confuses the judgment of the world. There 
is but one way to make general judgment possible in such 
cases. That is by bringing them to the decision of a com- 
petent court which will strip away the irrelevant, reject 
the false, and declare what the law requires or prohibits 
in the particular case. Such a court of international jus- 
tice with a general obligation to submit all justiciable 
questions to its jurisdiction and to abide by its judgment 
is a primary requisite to any real restraint of law. 

When we come to consider the working of an inter- 
national court, however, we are forced to realize that the 
law itself is in many respects imperfect and uncertain. 
There is no legislature to make laws for nations. There 
is no body of judicial decisions having the eflfect of prec- 
edent to declare what international laws are. The process 
of making international law by usage and general accept- 
ance has been necessarily so slow that it has not kept 



pace with the multiplying questions arising in the increas- 
ing intercourse of nations. In many fields of most fruit- 
ful controversy different nations hold tenaciously to dif- 
ferent rules, as, for recent example, upon the right of 
expatriation, upon the doctrine of continuous voyages, 
upon the right to transfer merchant vessels after the out- 
break of a war. Yet any attempt to maintain a court of 
international justice must fail unless there are laws for 
the court to administer. Without them the so-called 
court would be merely a group of men seeking to impose 
their personal opinions upon the states coming before 
them. The lack of an adequate system of law to be 
applied has been the chief obstacle to the development of 
a system of judicial settlement of international disputes. 
This is well illustrated by the history of the Second 
Hague Conference treaty for an international prize court. 
The Conference agreed to establish such a court and 
provided in article 7 of the treaty that in the absence 
of special treaty provisions governing the case presented 
"the Court shall apply the rules of international law. If 
no generally recognized rule exists the Court shall give 
judgment in accordance with the general principles of 
justice and equity." When the question of ratifying this 
treaty was presented to the powers whose delegates had 
signed it some of them awoke to the fact that upon many 
subjects most certain to call for the action of a court 
there was no general agreement as to what the rules of 
international law were, and that different nations had 
different ideas as to what justice and equity would re- 
quire and that each judge would naturally follow the 
views of his own country. Accordingly the Conference 
of London was called, and met in December, 1908. In 
that Conference the delegates of the principal maritime 

22 



powers came to agreement upon a series of questions and 
they embodied their agreement in the 71 articles of the 
Declaration of London. If that Declaration had been 
ratified by all the Powers in the Conference it would 
doubtless have been accepted as a statement of the inter- 
national law upon the subjects covered. But it was not 
ratified, and so the Prize Court treaty remains ineffective 
because the necessary basis for the action of the Court is 
wanting. It is plain that in order to have real courts by 
which the legal rights of nations can be determined and 
the conduct of nations can be subjected to definite tests 
there must be a settlement by agreement of old disputes 
as to what the law ought to be and provision for extend- 
ing the law over ffelds which it does not now cover. One 
thing especially should be done in this direction. Law 
can not control national policy, and it is through the 
working of long continued and persistent national policies 
that the present war has come. Against such policies 
all attempts at conciliation and good understanding and 
good-will among the nations of Europe have been power- 
less. But law, if enforced, can control the external steps 
by which a nation seeks to follow a policy and rules may 
be so framed that a policy of aggression can not be 
worked out except through open violations of law which 
will meet the protest and condemnation of the world at 
large, backed by whatever means shall have been devised 
for law enforcement. 

There is another weakness of international law as a 
binding force which it appears to me can be avoided only 
by a radical change in the attitude of nations towards 
violations of the law. 

We are all familiar with the distinction in the municipal 
law of all civilized countries between private and public 

23 



rights and the remedies for the protection or enforce- 
ment of them. Ordinary injuries and breaches of con- 
tract are redressed only at the instance of the injured 
person, and other persons are not deemed entitled to 
interfere. It is no concern of theirs. On the other 
hand, certain flagrant wrongs the prevalence of which 
would threaten the order and security of the com- 
munity are deemed to be everybody's business. If, 
for example, a man be robbed or assaulted the injury 
is deemed not to be done to him alone but to every 
member of the state by the breaking of the law against 
robbery or against violence. Every citizen is deemed 
to be injured by the breach of the law because the Taw is 
his protection and if the law be violated with impunity 
his protection will disappear. Accordingly, the govern- 
ment, which represents all its citizens, undertakes to 
punish such action even though the particular person 
against whom the injury was done may be content to go 
without redress. . Up to this time breaches of interna- 
tional law have been treated as we treat wrongs under 
civil procedure, as if they concerned nobody except the 
particular nation upon which the injury was inflicted and 
the nation inflicting it. There has been no general recog- 
nition of the right of other nations to object. There has 
been much international discussion of what the rules of 
law ought to be and the importance of observing them in 
the abstract, and there have been frequent interferences 
by third parties as a matter of policy upon the ground 
that specific, consequential injury to them might result 
from the breach, but, in general, states not directly 
affected by the particular injury complained of have not 
been deemed to have any right to be heard about it. It is 
only as disinterested mediators in the quarrels of others 

24 



or as rendering good offices to others that they have been 
accustomed to speak if at all. Until the First Hague 
Conference that form of interference was upon suffer- 
ance. In the Convention for the Pacific Settlement of 
International Disputes, concluded at that Conference, it 
was agreed that in case of serious trouble or conflict 
before an appeal to arms the signatory powers should 
have recourse to the good offices or mediation of foreign 
powers, and article 3 also provided: "Independent of 
this recourse the signatory powers recommend that one 
or more powers strangers to the dispute should on their 
own initiative and as far as circumstances may allow, 
offer their good offices or mediation to the states at vari- 
ance. Powers strangers to the dispute have a right to 
offer good offices or mediation even during the course of 
hostilities. The exercise of this right can never be re- 
garded by one or other of the parties in conflict as an 
unfriendly act." These provisions are a considerable 
step towards a change in the theory of the relation of third 
powers to an international controversy. They recognize 
such an independent interest in the prevention of conflict 
as to, be the basis of a right of initiative of other powers 
in an effort to bring about a settlement. It still remains 
under these provisions, however, that the other powers 
assert no substantive right of their own. They are sim- 
ply authorized to propose an interference in the quarrels 
of others to which they are deemed to be strangers. The 
enforcement of the rules of international law is thus left 
to the private initiative of the country appealing to those 
rules for protection and the rest of the world has in 
theory and in practice no concern with the enforcement 
or non-enforcement of the rules. 

If the law of nations is to be binding, if the decisions 

25 



of tribunals charged with the application of that law to 
international controversies are to be respected, there must 
be a change in theory, and violations of the law of such 
a character as to threaten the peace and order of the 
community of nations must be deemed to be a violation 
of the right of every civilized nation to have the law 
maintained and a legal injury to every nation. When a 
controversy arises between two nations other nations are 
indeed strangers to the dispute as to what the law re- 
quires in that controversy, but they can not really be 
strangers to a dispute as to whether the law which is 
applicable to the circumstances shall be observed or vio- 
lated. Next to the preservation of national character the 
most valuable possession of all peaceable nations great 
and small is the protection of those laws which constrain 
other nations to conduct based upon principles of justice 
and humanity. Without that protection there is no 
safety for the small state except in the shifting currents 
of policy among its great neighbors, and none for a great 
state, however peaceable and just may be its disposition, 
except in readiness for war. International laws violated 
with impunity must soon cease to exist and every state 
has a direct interest in preventing those violations which 
if permitted to continue would destroy the law. Wher- 
ever in. the world the laws which should protect the 
independence of nations, the inviolability of their terri- 
tory, the lives and property of their citizens, are violated, 
all other nations have a right to protest against the break- 
ing down of the law. Such a protest would not be an 
interference in the quarrels of others. It would be an 
assertion of the protesting nation's own right against the 
injury done to it by the destruction of the law upon 
which it relies for its peace and security. What would 

26 



follow such a protest must in each case depend upon the 
protesting nation's own judgment as to policy, upon the 
feeling of its people and the wisdom of its governing 
body. Whatever it does, if it does anything, will be done 
not as a stranger to a dispute or as an intermediary in 
the affairs of others, but in its own right for the protec- 
tion of its own interest. Upon no other theory than this 
can the decisions of any court for the application of the 
law of nations be respected, or any league or concert or 
agreement among nations for the enforcement of peace 
by arms or otherwise be established, or any general opin- 
ion of mankind for the maintenance of law be effective. 

Can any of these things be done? Can the law be 
strengthened and made effective? Imperfect and con- 
flicting as is the information upon which conjecture must 
be based, I think there is ground for hope that from the 
horrors of violated law a stronger law may come. It 
was during the appalling crimes of the Thirty Years 
War that Grotius wrote his De Jure Belli ac Pads and 
the science of. international law first took form and au- 
thority. The moral standards of the Thirty Years War 
have returned again to Europe with the same dreadful 
and intolerable consequences. We may hope that there 
will be again a great new departure to escape destruction 
by subjecting the nations to the rule of law. The de- 
velopment and extension of international law has been 
obstructed by a multitude of jealousies and supposed 
interests of nations each refusing to consent to any rule 
unless it be made most favorable to itself in all possible 
future contingencies. The desire to have a law has not 
been strong enough to overcome the determination of 
each nation to have the law suited to its own special 
circumstances; but when this war is over the desire to 

27 



have some law in order to prevent so far as possible a 
recurrence of the same dreadful experience may sweep 
away all these reluctances and schemes for advantage 
and lead to agreement where agreement has never yet 
been possible. It often happens that small differences 
and petty controversies are swept away by a great dis- 
aster, deep feeling, and a sense of common danger. If 
this be so we can have an adequate law and a real court 
which will apply its principles to serious as well as petty 
controversies, and a real public opinion of the world 
responding to the duty of preserving the law inviolate. 
If there be such an opinion it will be enforced. I shall 
not now inquire into the specific means of enforcement, 
but the means can be found. It is only when opinion is 
uncertain and divided or when it is sluggish and indiffer- 
ent and acts too late that it fails of effect. During all the 
desperate struggles and emergencies of the great war the 
conflicting nations from the beginning have been com- 
peting for the favorable judgment of the rest of the 
world with a solicitude which shows what a mighty 
power even now that opinion is. 

Nor can we doubt that this will be a different world 
when peace comes. Universal mourning for the untimely 
dead, suffering and sacrifice, the triumph of patriotism 
over selfishness, the long dominance of deep and serious 
feeling, the purifying influences of. self-devotion, will 
surely have changed the hearts of the nations, and much 
that is wise and noble and for the good of humanity may 
be possible that never was possible before. 

Some of us believe that the hope of the world's prog- 
ress lies in the spread and perfection of democratic self- 
government. It may be that out of the rack and welter 
of the great conflict may arise a general consciousness 

28 



that it is the people who are to be considered, their rights 
and liberties to govern and be governed for themselves 
rather than rulers' ambitions and policies of aggrandise- 
ment. If that be so our hopes will be realized, for autoc- 
racy can protect itself by arbitrary power, but the people 
can protect themselves only by the rule of law. 



29 



LIST OF PUBUCATIONS 

Nos. i-8s (April, 1907. to December, 1914)- Including papers by Baron d'Estoumellea 
de Constant, George Tnimbull Ladd, Elihu Root, Barrett Wendell, Charles E. Jefferson, 
Seth Low, William James, Andrew Carnegie, Pope Pius X, Heinrich Lammasch, Norman 
Angell, Charles W. Eliot, Sir Oliver Lodge, Lord Haldane and others. A list of titles and 
authors will be sent on application. 

86. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. IV. 

I. Turkish Official Documents. November, 1914. 
II. Speech of the Imperial Chancellor to the Reichstag. December 2, 1914. 
III. The Belgian Gray Book. (July 24, August 29, 1914.) January, 1915. 

87. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. V. 

The French Yellow Book, Translated and Prepared for Parliament by the British 
Government. February, 1915. 

88. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. V. 

The French Yellow Book, Translated and Prepared for Parliament by the British 
Government. March, 1915. 

89. Documents Regarding the European War. _ Series No. VT. 

The Austrian Red Book, Official Translation Prepared by the Austrian Govern- 
ment. April, 1915. 

90. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. VII. 

The Serbian Blue Book. May, 1915. 

91. The Fundamental Causes of the World War, by Alfred H. Fried. June, 1915. 

92. To the Citizens of the Belligerent States, by G. Heymans. July, 1915. 

93. Docimients Regarding the European War. Series No. VIII. 

Italy's Green Book, Translation approved by Royal Italian Embassy, Washing- 
ton, D. C. August, 1915. 

94. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. IX. 

Official Correspondence Between the United States and Cjermany. 
I. Declaration of London, August 6, 1914 — October 24, 1914. 
II. Contraband of War, September 4, 1914 — ^April 26, 1915. 

III. Restraints of Commerce, February 6, 1913 — September 7, 191s- 

IV. Caseof the WilliamP. Frye, Marchai, 1915— July 30, 1915. September, 191$. 

95. Documents Regarding the Euroi>ean War. Series No. X. 

Official Correspondence Between the United States and Great Britain. 
I. Declaration of London, August 6, 1914 — October 22, 1914. 
II. Contraband of War, August s. I914 — April 10, I9IS. 

III. Restraints of Commerce, December 26, 1914 — July 31, 1913. 

IV. Case of the Wilhelmina, February 15, 1915 — ^April 8, 1915. October, 191S. 

96. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. XI. 

I. Secretary Bryan's Letter to Senator Stone Regarding Charges of Partiality 

Shown to Great Britain, January 20, 1913. 
II. The Austr'o-Hungarian Minister for Foreign Affairs to Ambassador Pen- 
field, June 29, I9I.';. 
III. The Secretary of State to Ambassador Penfield, August 12, 1915. 
November, 1915. ' 

97. Referendum on the Report of the Special Committee on Economic Results of the 

War and American Business. Reprinted by permission of the Chamber of 
Commerce of the United States. December, 1915. 

98. The Land Where Hatred Expires, by Albert L^on Gu6rard. January, 1916. 

99. America's Opinion of the World War, by Eduard Bernstein. Translated by 

John Mez. February, 1916. 
100. International Cofiperation, by John Bassett Moore. The Outlook for Inter- 
national Law, by Elihu Root. March, 1916. 
Special Bulletins: 

A Brief Outline of the Nature and Aims of Pacifism, by Alfred H. Fried. Trans- 
lated by John Mez. April, 1913. 
Internationalism . A list of Current Periodicals selected and annotated by Frederick 

C. Hicks. May, 191S. 
Preparedness as the C^surtoonists See It, with introduction by Charles E. Jefferson. 

May, 1915. 
Spirit of Militarism and Non-Military Preparation for Defense, by John Lovejojr 

Elliott and R. Tait McKenzie. June, 1913- 
Existing Alliances and a League of Peace, by John Bates Clark. July, I9IS- 
Is Commerce War? by Henry Raymond Mussey. January, 1916. 
Peace Literature of the War, by John Mez. January, 1916. 
Up to the limit of the editions printed, any one of the above will be sent postpaid upoa 
receipt of a request addressed to the Secretary of the American Association for International 
Conciliation, Postoffice Sub-station 84, New York, N. Y. 



jsf.se-i 



International Conciliation 

Published monthly by the 
American Association for International Conciliation. 
Entered as second-class matter at New York, N. Y., 
Postoffice, February 23, 1909, under act of July 16, 1894 



OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS BEARING UPON THE 
EUROPEAN WAR. SERIES XII 

statement of 

MEASURES ADOPTED TO INTERCEPT THE 

SEA-BORNE COMMERCE OF GERMANY 

Presented to Both Houses of Parliament by Command 
of His Majesty, January, 1916 



GREAT BRITAIN'S MEASURES AGAINST 
GERMAN TRADE 

A Speech Delivered by the Rt. Hon. Sir E. Grey, Seaetary of State for Foreign 
Affairs, in the House of Commons, on the 26th of January, 1916. 




APRIL. 1916 
No. 101 




American Association for International Conciliation 

Sub-Station 84 (407 West 1 17th Street) 

New York Gty 

1916 



It is the aim of the Association for International Con- 
ciliation to awaken interest and to seek co-operation 
in the movement to promote international good will. 
This movement depends for its ultimate success upon 
increased international understanding, appreciation, 
and sjrmpathy. To this end, documents are printed 
and widely circulated, giving information as to the 
progress of the movement and as to matters connected 
therewith, in order that individual citizens, the news- 
paper press, and organizations of various kinds may 
have accurate information on these subjects readily 
available. 

It is the aim of the Association to avoid, as far as 
possible, contentious questions, and in particular 
questions relating to the domestic policy of any given 
nation. Attention is to be fixed rather upon those 
imderlying principles of international law, international 
conduct, and international organization, which must 
be agreed upon and enforced by all nations if peaceful 
civilization is to continue and to be advanced. A list 
of pubUcations will be found on pages 42 and 43. 



STATEMENT OF THE MEASURES 

ADOPTED TO INTERCEPT THE 

SEA-BORNE COMMERCE 

OF GERMANY 

1. The object of this memorandum is to give an account 
of the manner in which the sea power of the British 
Empire has been used during the present war for the 
purpose of intercepting Germany's imports and exports. 

I. — Belligerent Rights at Sea. 

2. The means by which a belligerent who possesses a 
fleet has, up to the time of the present war, interfered 
with the commerce of his enemy are three in number : — 

(i.) The capture of contraband of war on neutral 

ships. 
(ii.) The capture of enemy property at sea. 
(iii.) A blockade by which all access to the coast of 

the enemy is cut off. 

3. The second of these powers has been cut down 
since the Napoleonic wars by the Declaration of Paris 
of 1856, under which enemy goods on a neutral ship, 
with the exception of contraband of war, were exempted 
from capture. Enemy goods which had been loaded on 
British or Allied ships before the present war were 
seized in large quantities immediately, after its outbreak ; 
but for obvious reasons such shipments ceased, for all 
practical purposes, after the 4th August, 1914, and this 
particular method of injuring the enemy may therefore, 
for the moment, be disregarded. 



No blockade of Germany was declared until March, 
191 5, and therefore up to that date we had to rely ex- 
clusively on the right to capture contraband. 

II. — Contraband. 

4. By the established classification goods are divided 
into three classes : — 

(a.) Goods primarily used for warHke purposes. 

(b.) Goods which may be equally used for either war- 
like or peaceful purposes. 

(c.) Goods which are exclusively used for peaceful 
purposes. 

5. Under the law of contraband, goods in the first 
class may be seized if they can be proved to be going 
to the enemy country; goods in the second class may be 
seized if they can be proved to be going to the enemy 
Government or its armed forces ; goods in the third class 
must be allowed to pass free. As to the articles which 
fall within any particular one of these classes, there has 
been no general agreement in the past, and the attempts 
of belligerents to enlarge the first class at the expense 
of the second, and the second at the expense of the third, 
have led to considerable friction with neutrals. 

6. Under the rules of prize law, as laid down and 
administered by Lord Stowell, goods were not regarded 
as destined for an enemy country unless they were to 
be discharged in a port in that country ; but the American 
prize courts in the Civil War found themselves com- 
pelled by the then existing conditions of commerce to 
apply and develop the doctrine of continuous voyage, 
under which goods which could be proved to be ulti- 



mately intended for an enemy country were not ex- 
empted from seizure on the ground that they were first 
to be discharged in an intervening neutral port. This 
doctrine, although hotly contested by many publicists, 
had never been challenged by the British Government, 
and was more or less recognized as having become part 
of International Law. 

7. When the present war broke out it was thought 
convenient, in order, among other things, to secure uni- 
formity of procedure among all the Allied forces, to de- 
clare the principles of international law which the Allied 
Governments regarded as applicable to contraband and 
other matters. Accordingly, by the Orders in Council of 
the 20th August and the 22d October, 1914, and the 
corresponding French Decrees, the rules set forth in 
the Declaration of London were adopted by the French 
and British Governments with certain modifications. As 
to contraband, the lists of contraband and free goods in 
the Declaration were rejected, and the doctrine of con- 
tinuous voyage was applied not only to absolute contra- 
band, as the Declaration already provided, but also to 
conditional contraband, if such goods were consigned to 
order, or if the papers did not show the consignee of 
the goods, or if they showed a consignee^ in enemy ter- 
ritory. 

8. The situation as regards German trade was as fol- 
lows: Direct trade to German ports (save across the 
Baltic) had almost entirely ceased, and practically no 
ships were met with bound to German ports. The sup- 
plies that Germany desired to import from overseas were 
directed to neutral ports in Scandinavia, Holland, or 
(at first) Italy, and every effort was made to disguise 
their real destination. The power which we had to deal 



with this situation in the circumstances then existing 
was : — 

(i.) We had the right to seize articles of absolute 
contraband if it could be proved that they 
were destined for the enemy country, although 
they were to be discharged in a neutral port. 

(ii.) We had the right to seize articles of conditional 
contraband if it could be proved that they 
were destined for the enemy Government or 
its armed forces, in the cases specified above, 
although they were to be discharged in a neu- 
tral port. 

9. On the other hand, there was no power to seize 
articles of conditional contraband if they could not be 
shown to be destined for the enemy Government or its 
armed forces, or non-contraband articles, even if they 
were on their way to a port in Germany, and there was 
no power to stop German exports. 

10. That was the situation until the actions of the 
German Government led to the adoption of more ex- 
tended powers of intercepting German commerce in 
March, 191 5. The Allied Governments then decided to 
stop all goods which could be proved to be going to, or 
coming from, Germany. The state of things produced 
is in effect a blockade, adapted to the condition of mod- 
ern war and commerce, the only difference in opera- 
tion being that the goods seized are not necessarily con- 
fiscated. In these circumstances it will be convenient, 
in considering the treatment of German imports and 
exports, to omit any further reference to the nature of 
the commodities in question as, once their destination 
or origin is established, the power to stop them is com- 

6 



plete. Our contraband rights, however, remain unaf- 
fected, though they, too, depend on the abiUty to prove 
enemy destination. 

III. — German Exports. 

11. In carrying out our blockade poHcy great impor- 
tance was from the outset attached to the stoppage of 
the enemy's export trade, because it is clear that to the 
extent that his exports can be stopped, and his power to 
establish credits for himself in neutral countries cur- 
tailed, his imports from such neutral countries will more 
or less automatically diminish. The identification of 
articles of enemy origin is, thanks to the system of 
certificateg of origin which has been established, a com- 
paratively simple matter, and the degree to which the 
policy of stopping German and Austrian oversea exports 
has been successful can best be judged by looking at the 
statistics of German and Austrian imports into America. 

12. The normal imports into the United States of 
America from Germany and Austria, before the war, for 
the seven months March to September inclusive, are 
valued approximately and in round figures at 124,000,- 
000 dollars (24,800,000/.). From March to September 
inclusive, this year's imports into the United States of 
America from those countries were valued at approxi- 
mately 22,000,000 dollars (4,400,000/.). This sum in- 
cludes the goods which were already in neutral ports in 
the way of shipment or in transit when the further 
measures adopted by the Allied Governments were an- 
nounced in March, and also a considerable proportion of 
those which have been allowed to pass in the circum- 
stances mentioned in paragraph 14. A certain amount 



is also to be accounted for by goods received from Ger- 
many and Austria by parcel post, which it was not 
originally possible to stop effectively. Steps have now 
been taken to close this channel to enemy exports. The 
latest returns available, those for September, show that 
over 92 per cent, of the German exports to the United 
States of America have been stopped. 

13. The above figures allow of but one conclusion: 
the oversea exports of Germany and Austria are very 
near extinction. It is of special interest to note that 
in the main these exports have not been merely diverted 
to the neutral countries adjacent to Germany. The im- 
ports which those countries have received from Germany 
have not in fact exceeded the normal quantities of pre- 
vious years. 

14. The object of the policy being to injure the enemy, 
the Allied Governments have in certain cases permitted 
the export of goods which had been ordered before the 
1st March, and had been either paid for prior to that 
date or ordered before that date on terms which ren- 
dered the neutral purchaser liable to pay whether the 
goods reached him or not. It is clear that in these 
cases no harm would be done to the enemy, or pressure 
put upon him, by not allowing the goods to pass. On 
the contrary, he would, if that were done, both receive 
his price and retain the goods and their possible use. 
The total value of the goods with which the Allied Gov- 
ernments have undertaken not to interfere in such cases 
up to the end of 191 5 is approximately 3,000,000/. If 
the goods allowed to pass under this arrangement were 
deducted from the total enemy exports to the United 
States of America, it would be seen that the amount 



of German exports which serve to increase the resources 
of the enemy is almost negligible. 

IV. — German Imports. 

15. As regards German imports, however, the prob- 
lem is much more complicated. Its central difficulty is 
that of distinguishing between goods with an enemy 
destination from those with a genuine neutral destina- 
tion. A belligerent who makes use of his naval power 
to intercept the commerce of his enemy has to justify 
his action in each particular case before a Prize Court, 
which is bound by international law and not by the ordi- 
nary law of the country in which it sits. It is not suffi- 
cient for him to stop a neutral vessel and remove from 
her such articles as he may believe to be intended for 
his enemy ; it is necessary subsequently to demonstrate 
in a court of law that the destination of the goods was 
such as to justify the belligerent in seizing them. If 
this is not proved, the goods will be released, and dam- 
ages may be awarded against the captor. It must also 
be remembered that, in order to justify the seizure of a 
particular consignment, it is necessary to satisfy the 
Prize Court of the enemy destination of that consign- 
ment, and evidence of a general nature, if unaccom- 
panied by proofs directly bearing on a particular case, 
is not enough. All this applies as much to goods seized 
as contraband as it does to those seized for breach of 
blockade, . 

16. In earlier wars the production of the necessary 
proof was a comparatively simple matter. Owing to 
the difficulties of inland transport before the introduc- 
tion of railways, goods for the enemy country were 



usually carried to ports in that country and the ship's 
papers showed their destination. When, therefore, the 
ship had been captured, the papers found on board were 
generally sufficient to dispose of the case. In the old 
cases of contraband, the question at issue was usually not 
where the goods were in fact going to, but whether their 
nature was such as to make them liable to condemnation 
in view of the destination shown on the ship's papers. 
Even in the American Civil War the difficulty of prov- 
ing destination was usually not serious, because the neu- 
tral harbours through which the supply of goods for the 
Confederate States was carried on were in normal times 
ports of comparatively small importance, and it could 
be shown that in normal times there was no local market 
for goods of such quantities and character. 

17. The case has been far different in the present 
war. The goods which Germany attempts to import are 
consigned to neutral ports, and it need hardly be said 
that the papers on board convey no suggestion as to 
their ultimate destination. The conditions of modern 
commerce offer almost infinite opportunities of conceal- 
ing the real nature of a transaction, and every device 
which the ingenuity of the persons concerned, or their 
lawyers, could suggest has been employed to give to 
shipments intended for Germany the appearance of gen- 
uine transactions with a neutral country. The ports to 
which the goods are consigned, such as Rotterdam and 
Copenhagen, have in peace time an important trade, 
which increases the difficulty of distinguishing the ar- 
ticles ultimately intended to reach the enemy country 
from those which represent importation into the neutral 
country concerned for its own requirements. If action 
had to be taken solely on such information as might be 

10 



gathered by the boarding officer on his visit to the ship, 
it would have been quite impossible to interfere to an 
appreciable extent with German imports, and the Allied 
Governments would therefore have been deprived of a 
recognized belligerent right. 

i8. In these circumstances, unless the Allied Govern- 
ments were prepared to seize and place in the Prize 
Court the whole of the cargo of every ship which was 
on her way to a neutral country adjacent to Germany, 
and to face the consequences of such action, the only 
course open to them was to discover some test by which 
goods destined for the enemy could be distinguished 
from those which were intended for neutral consump- 
tion. 

19. The first plan adopted for this purpose is to make 
use of every source of information available in order 
to discover the real destination of sea-borne goods, and 
to exercise to the full the right of stopping such goods 
as the information obtained showed to be suspect, while 
making a genuine and honest attempt to distinguish be- 
tween bond fide neutral trade and trade which, although 
in appearance equally innocent, was in fact carried on 
with the enemy country. 

20. For this purpose a considerable organization has 
been established in the Contraband Committee, which 
sits at the Foreign Office, and works in close touch with 
the Admiralty, Board of Trade, and War Trade Depart- 
ment. Nearly every ship on her way to Scandinavian or 
Dutch ports comes or is sent into a British port for 
examination, and every item of her cargo is immediately 
considered in the light of all the information which has 
been collected from the various sources open to the Gov- 

II 



ernment, and which, after nearly a year and a half of 
war, is very considerable. Any items of cargo as to 
which it appears that there is a reasonable ground for 
suspecting an enemy destination are placed in the Prize 
Court, while articles as to the destination of which there 
appears to be doubt are detained pending further in- 
vestigation. 

• 21. If, however, this were all that could be done, there 
is little doubt that it would be impossible to effect a com- 
plete cutting off of the enemy's supplies. For instance, 
there are many cases in which it would be difficult to 
establish in the Prize Court our right to stop goods, al- 
though they or their products, perhaps after passing 
through several hands, would in all probability ultimately 
reach the enemy. To indicate more plainly the nature 
of these difficulties would obviously be to assist the 
enemy and the neutral traders who desire to supply him ; 
but the difficulties exist, and, in order to meet them, 
it has been necessary to adopt other means by which 
neutral may be more easily distinguished from enemy 
trade, and the blockade of Germany made more effective 
than it would be if we relied solely on the right to stop 
goods which could be proved to be intended for the 
enemy. 

y. — Guarantees by Importers. 

22. Importers in neutral countries adjacent to Ger- 
many have found that the exercise of our belligerent 
rights to some extent impedes the importation of articles 
which they genuinely need for the requirements of their 
own country, and consequently they have in many cases 
shown willingness to make agreements with this country 



which on the one hand secure their receiving the sup- 
pHes which they need, while on the other guaranteeing 
to us that goods allowed to pass under the terms of the 
agreement will not reach the enemy. The neutral Gov- 
ernments themselves have as a rule considered it in- 
advisable to make agreements on such points with His 
Majesty's Government; they have on the whole confined 
their action to prohibiting the export of certain articles 
which it was necessary for them to import from abroad. 
Inasmuch, however, as in most cases they reserved the 
right to grant exemptions from such prohibitions, and 
as trade between the Scandinavian countries themselves 
was usually excluded from the scope of such measures, 
the mere fact of the existence of such prohibitions could 
not be considered a sufficie'nt safeguard that commodities 
entering the country would not ultimately reach Ger- 
many. 

23. In some neutral countries, however, agreements 
have been made by representative associations of mer- 
chants, the basis of which is that the associations guar- 
antee that articles consigned to or guaranteed by them, 
and their products, will not reach the enemy in any 
form, while His Majesty's Government undertake not 
to interfere with shipments consigned to the association, 
subject to their right to institute prize proceedings in 
exceptional cases where there is evidence that an at- 
tempt has been made to perpetrate a fraud upon the 
association, and to pass the goods ultimately through to 
Germany. The first of these agreements was made with 
the Netherlands Oversea Trust, and similar agreements, 
either general or dealing with particular commodities of 
special importance, such as rubber and cotton, have been 
made with bodies of merchants in Sweden, Norway, 

13 



Denmark, and Switzerland. The details of these agree- 
ments it is impossible to give more fully, but the general 
principle is that the associations, before allowing goods 
to be consigned to them, require the would-be receivers 
to satisfy them, by undertakings backed by sufficient 
pecuniary penalties, that the goods will not leave the 
country, either in their original shape or after any proc- 
ess of manufacture, and notwithstanding any sales of 
which they may be the subject. 

In some cases these agreements provide that the asso- 
ciations shall themselves be bound to detain or return 
goods believed by His Majesty's Government to be 
destined for the enemy; so that it does not follow that 
cargoes allowed to proceed to a neutral port will neces- 
sarily be delivered to the consignees. 

24. The existence of such agreements is of great value 
in connection with the right of seizure, because the fact 
of articles not being consigned to or guaranteed by the 
association, or being consigned to it without the neces- 
sary consent, at once raises the presumption that they 
are destined for the enemy. 

VI. — Agreements zvith Shipping Lines. 

25. Delays caused by the elaborate exercise of the 
belligerent right of visit and search are very irksome to 
shipping; and many shipping lines who carry on regular 
services with Scandinavia and Holland have found it 
well worth their while to make agreements with His 
Majesty's Government under which they engage to meet 
our requirements with regard to goods carried by them, 
in return for an undertaking that their ships will be de- 
layed for as short a time as possible for examination in 

14 



British ports. Several agreements of this kind have 
been made; the general principle of them is that His 
Majesty's Government obtain the right to require any 
goods carried by the line, if not discharged in the British 
port of examination, to be either returned to this coun- 
try for Prize Court proceedings, or stored in the country 
of destination until the end of the v^ar, or only handed 
to the consignees under stringent guarantees that they 
or their products will not reach the enemy. The com- 
panies obtain the necessary power to comply with these 
conditions by means of a special clause inserted in all 
their bills of lading, and the course selected by the 
British authorities is determined by the nature of the 
goods and the circumstances of the case. In addition to 
this, some of these companies make a practice, before 
accepting consignments of certain goods, of enquiring 
whether their carriage is likely to lead to difficulties, and 
of refusing to carry them in cases where it is intimated 
that such would be the case. The control which His 
Majesty's Government are in a position to exercise under 
these agreements over goods carried on the lines in 
question is of very great value. 

VH. — Bunker Coal. 

26. Much use has been made recently of the power 
which the British Government are in a position to ex- 
ercise owing to their ability to refuse bunker coal to 
neutral ships in ports in the British Empire. Bunker 
coal is now only supplied to neutral vessels whose own- 
ers are willing to comply with certain conditions which 
ensure that no vessels owned, chartered, or controlled by 
them trade with any port in an enemy country, or carry 

15 



any cargo which proceeds from, or is destined for, an 
enemy country. The number of owners who accept 
these conditions increases almost daily. The use of this 
weapon has already induced several shipping lines which 
before the war maintained regular services between 
Scandinavian and German Baltic ports to abandon their 
services. 

VIII. — Agreements in respect of Particular Commodities 

2y. Special agreements have been made in respect of 
particular articles the supply of which is mainly derived 
from the British Empire or over which the British Gov- 
ernment are in a position to exercise control. The 
articles covered by such agreements, the object of which 
is to secure such control over the supply of these mate- 
rials as will ensure that they or their products will not 
reach the enemy, are rubber, copper, wool, hides, oil, tin, 
plumbago, and certain other metals. 

IX. — Rationing. 

28. Though the safeguards already described do much 
to stop entirely all trade to and from Germany, yet, in 
spite of all of them, goods may and do reach our enemies, 
and, on the other hand, considerable inconvenience is 
caused to genuinely neutral trade. It is to avoid both 
evils that Plis Majesty's Government have for months 
past advocated what is called rationing, as by far the 
soundest system both for neutrals and belligerents. It 
is an arrangement by which the import of any given 
article into a neutral country is limited to the amount of 
its true domestic requirements. The best way of carry- 
ing this arrangement into effect is probably by agreement 

16 



with some body representing either one particular trade 
or the whole commerce of the country. Without such an 
agreement there is always a risk that, in spite of all pre- 
cautions, the whole rationed amount of imports may be 
secured by traders who are really German agents. These 
imports might go straight on to Germany, and there 
would then be great practical difficulty in dealing with 
the next imports destined, it may be, for genuine neutral 
traders. If they were to be stopped, there would be 
great complaint of injustice to neutrals, and yet unless 
that be done the system would break down. Accord- 
ingly, agreements of this kind have been concluded in 
various countries, and His Majesty's Government are 
not without hope that they may be considerably extended 
in the future. Even so the security is not perfect. An 
importer may always let his own countrymen go short 
and re-export to Germany. The temptation to do so is 
great, and as our blockade forces prices up is increasing. 
But the amount that gets through in this way cannot be 
large, and the system is in its working so simple that it 
minimises the delays and other inconveniences to neutral 
commerce inseparable from war. Of the details of these 
arrangements it is impossible to speak. But their prin- 
ciple appears to offer the most hopeful solution of the 
complicated problems arising from the necessity of ex- 
ercising our blockade through neutral countries. 

X. — Results. 

29. As to the results of the policy described in this 
memorandum, the full facts are not available. But some 
things are clear. It has already been shown that the 
export trade of Germany has been substantially de- 

3 17 



stroyed. With regard to imports, it is believed that some 
of the most important, such as cotton, wool, and rubber, 
have for many months been excluded from Germany. 
Others, like fats and oils and dairy produce, can only be 
obtained there, if at all, at famine prices. All accounts, 
public and private, which reach His ^Majesty's Govern- 
ment agree in stating that there is considerable discon- 
tent amongst sections of the German population, and 
there appear to have been food riots in some of the 
larger towns. That our blockade prevents any commodi- 
ties from reaching Germany is not, and under the 
geographical circumstances cannot be, true. But it is 
already successful to a degree which good judges both 
here and in Germany thought absolutely impossible, and 
its efficiency is growing day by day. It is right to add 
that these results have been obtained without any serious 
friction with any neutral Government. There are ob- 
vious objections to dwelling on the importance to us of 
the good will of neutral nations ; but anyone who con- 
siders the geographical, military, and commercial situa- 
tion of the various countries will certainly not underrate 
the value of this consideration. There is great danger 
when dealing with international questions in concentrat- 
ing attention exclusively on one point in them, even if 
that point be as vital as is undoubtedly the blockade of 
Germany. 

XI. — Conclusion. 

30. To sum up, the policy which has been adopted in 
order to enforce the blockade of Germany may be de- 
scribed as follows: — 

(i.) German exports to oversea countries have been 
almost entirely stopped. Such exceptions as 

18 



have been made are in cases where a refusal 
to allow the export of the goods would hurt 
the neutral concerned without inflicting any 
injury upon Germany. 

(ii.) All shipments to neutral countries adjacent to 
Germany are carefully scrutinised with a view 
to the detection of a concealed enemy destina- 
tion. Wherever there is reasonable ground 
■ for suspecting such destination, the goods are 
placed in the Prize Court. Doubtful consign- 
ments are detained until satisfactory guaran- 
tees are produced. 

(iii.) Under agreements in force with bodies of rep- 
resentative merchants in several neutral coun- 
tries adjacent to Germany, stringent guaran- 
tees are exacted from importers, and so far as 
possible all trade between the neutral country 
and Germany, whether arising overseas or in 
the neutral country itself, is restricted. 

(iv.) By agreements with shipping lines and by a 
vigorous use of the power to refuse bunker 
coal, a large proportion of the neutral mercan- 
tile marine which carries on trade with Scan- 
dinavia and Holland has been induced to agree 
to conditions designed to prevent goods car- 
ried in these ships from reaching the enemy. 

(v.) Every effort is being made to introduce a sys- 
tem of rationing which will ensure that the 
neutral countries concerned only import such 
quantities of the articles specified as are nor- 
mally imported for their own consumption. 

19 



A SPEECH DELIVERED BY 
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE SIR E. GREY 

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. 

ON THE 26th JANUARY. 1916. 

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir 
Edward Grey) : The Right Hon. Gentleman who has 
just spoken (Mr, Leverton Harris) has made a most 
interesting speech, full of knowledge, and founded upon 
personal experience. The Right Hon. Gentleman is one 
of those, of whom there are several in the House and 
many outside, who have been giving most devoted ser- 
vice on committees in carrying out the policy of the 
Government with regard to contraband. There have 
been from the beginning of the War a number of people 
of great knowledge and experience who have given their 
services voluntarily on these various committees, and 
whose services have been of enormous value. I think 
the House will have gathered from the Right Hon. Gen- 
tleman's speech that the subject with which we are deal- 
ing is not really so simple, and cannot be made so simple, 
as might .appear from some of the speeches that are 
made upon it and some of the articles which appear 
outside. It is a most difficult and complicated subject. 
I gather from the Debate, as far^ as it has gone, that 
there is real misapprehension in the House as to what 
is the present state of things with regard to the amount 
of trade passing through neutral countries to the enemy, 
and also real misapprehension, and a vast underestimate, 



of what the Government is doing through its various 
agencies to prevent that trade. In the first place, I 
must deal with some of the figures scattered broadcast 
lately in some organs of the Press, which have created 
a grotesque and quite untrue impression of the amount 
of leakage through neutral countries — figures which will 
not bear examination, but the conclusions founded upon 
which have undoubtedly done great harm. The figures 
consist, as far as I have seen them, of statistics from 
the official returns of the United States giving the 
amount of exports to certain neutral countries in Europe 
in a normal year of peace. Figures are then given which 
purport to be the excess figure for those same neutral 
countries at the present time, these figures being greatly 
in excess of the peace figures. The peace figures are 
then subtracted from the figures of last year, and the 
conclusion is drawn that the whole of that surplus has 
gone to Germany. On that are founded various attacks 
upon the Government. These figures published in this 
way, do a great injustice — or rather attacks founded 
upon these figures do a great injustice — to the Govern- 
ment. The figures take no account of the fact that in 
the case of many of these articles in time of peace neu- 
tral countries do not draw the whole of their supplies 
from the United States. They draw them from enemy 
countries, or from sources which are not available to 
them in time of war. Therefore, to take the exports 
from the United States into these countries, and to 
assume that, because these exports have risen therefore 
the large surplus which has been imported into neutral 
countries has gone into enemy countries, entirely leaves 
out of account the fact that in very many cases the 
increased exports from the United States have been for 



real consumption in those neutral countries, and have 
taken the place of the supplies which in peace time have 
been drawn from other sources than the United States, 
and are not now available. 

In the next place, the figures of exports from the 
United States give the amount of stuff which left the 
ports of the United States. These do not necessarily 
correspond with the amount of stuff which arrives in 
the neutral ports. What is the cause of all the trouble 
and the very great friction that there has been with the 
meat-packers of the United States ? It is because a large 
amount of the produce coming from the United States 
consigned to neutral ports, which we believed was des- 
tined for the enemy, never reached the neutral ports. 
It is in the Prize Court here. So at one and the same 
time the Foreign Office, or the Government, is having a 
very warm contention indeed with neutral Governments, 
or groups of people in neutral countries, on the ground 
that we have put their produce into the Prize Court here 
and detained it and at the same time we are being at- 
tacked in this country on the ground that that very same 
produce has gone through neutral countries into the 
enemy countries! Some figures have been published in 
the Press to-day giving a very different impression of 
the true state of the case as regards the neutral coun- 
tries and the enemy — figures published by the War Trade 
Department. I recommend that those figures should be 
studied, for they, at any rate, reduce the thing to very 
different proportions. 

But I have had some other figures supplied to me, 
out of which I am going to take two striking instances. 
The statement has been made in one organ of the Press, 
in regard to wheat, that the exports of wheat from the 



United States to Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and the 
Netherlands collectively, rose from 19,000,000 bushels 
in the first ten months of 1913 — that is, the year of peace 
— to 50,000,000 bushels in the corresponding period of 
19 1 5 — that is to say, an excess of 31,000,000 bushels. 
The conclusion is drawn that that has all gone to the 
enemy through those neutral countries. It is almost 
incredible, if the figures supplied to me are reliable — 
and I believe they are — that a statement of that kind 
should have been made. Those 50,000,000 bushels from 
the United States are the figures given under a col- 
lective heading in the United States Returns, which com- 
prises, not merely these four Scandinavian countries, but 
"other Europe," incliiding Spain, Portugal, Greece, and 
Malta ; so that these 50,000,000 bushels not only go to 
Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Holland, but also in- 
clude the exports to Spain, Portugal, Greece, and Malta. 
The exports to Spain, Portugal, Greece, and Malta alone 
amounted to 23,000,000 bushels. That is a very large 
part of the whole increase. Why do these countries 
take so much? Because no doubt they depended, I pre- 
sume, in ordinary years, very largely on grain coming 
from Black Sea ports which has ceased to be available. 
Therefore there is no need to assume that Spain, Portu- 
gal, Greece, and Malta were importing wheat in order' 
to pass on to the enemy ; they wanted it to supply the 
grain which they would have got in normal years from 
other sources. 

From the figures that remain some millions more 
bushels must be deducted which have been allowed to 
go through under special international arrangements to 
the Belgian Relief Fund. When you have deducted 
those you find that these four countries — the three Scan- 

23 



dinavian countries and Holland — which were supposed 
to have sent 3i,ooo,cx)0 bushels on to the enemy, had not, 
as a matter of fact, imported at all in excess of their 
normal requirements, and there is no reason to suppose 
that any of these bushels got to the enemy. Then I take 
the figures quoted in the Press for wheat-flour. The 
figures quoted suggest an increase in the exports of 
wheat-flour from the United States to Holland and the 
three Scandinavian countries in the first ten months of 
1915, over the corresponding period of 1913, of 3,700,000 
barrels ; the assumption again being that that had all 
gone to the enemy. This increase includes not merely 
what went to those four countries, but also includes an 
increase to France of 1,400,000 barfels, and to Italy of 
250,000 barrels. In addition, there was something over 
1,000,000 allowed to go through to the Belgian Relief 
Fund, making, with the increase to France and to Italy, 
a total of 3,000,000 barrels. Out of, therefore, 3,700,000 
barrels supposed to have gone to the enemy there is 
accounted for 3,000,000 barrels. The actual increase to 
the three Scandinavian countries is, therefore, reduced 
from 3,700,000 barrels to only 650,000 barrels. In view 
of the deficiency of the whole production of wheat in 
Scandinavia in 1914, this increase, according to the in- 
formation supplied to me, cannot be regarded as ex- 
cessive. That puts the thing in a very different light. 

Leakage, of course, through neutral countries there 
has been, and will be. Whatever you do, if you adopt 
every suggestion made in this House, you cannot pre- 
vent some leakage.. You cannot take over the adminis- 
tration of neutral countries. You cannot prevent smug- 
gling taking place even against the regulations of the 
neutral countries themselves. It is not in our power to 

24 



do that under whatever system you have, whether you 
call it blockade, or whatever name you give to it. You 
have still to let through to neutral countries the things 
which they really require for their own consumption. 
You have, therefore, to distinguish between the things 
which they need for their own consumption and the 
things which they import with a view to their being 
passed on to the enemy. You have to make that dis- 
tinction. Nobody could have listened to the speech of 
my Right Hon. Friend the Merriber for East Worcester- 
shire (Mr. Harris) without realising how impossible it 
is to do that perfectly. You have every sort of in- 
genuity brought to bear to make it difficult for you to 
distinguish — to make it absolutely impossible, whatever 
the Navy may do, whatever strict provision there may 
be, to make sure that in no case will a cargo, or part of 
a cargo which is apparently destined for consumption 
in a neutral country, but really is destined for the ene- 
my, go through to that neutral country. Some leakage 
there will always be. We have been anxious about that 
leakage. We have done what we can to get real infor- 
mation as to what is going on. The other day Lord 
Faringdon, who a short time ago was well known in 
this House as Sir Alexander Henderson, went over to 
make inquiries on the spot. He is, at least, as well 
qualified by ability, knowledge and experience to ascer- 
tain the facts as anyone who could be sent on behalf of 
any unofficial agency. He has produced a report. That 
report does not say that there is no leakage, but I think, 
on the whole, it is a very satisfactory report. In my 
opinion it shows that the amount of leakage in the trade 
passing from overseas through these neutral countries 
to the enemy is, considering all the facts of the case, 

25 



much less than might have been supposed. The general 
tendency of the report is to show that the maximum 
which can be done is being done without serious trouble 
with neutral countries, founded upon the idea that you 
are really interfering with their supplies. 

Sir H. Dalziel: Can we see that report? 

Sir E. Grey: No, the report cannot be published. 
You cannot make these inquiries and publish the infor- 
mation obtained without its being known to the enemy. 
If it is known to the enemy your power of getting fur- 
ther information, and of watching what is going on — 
the actual facts even of what is going on are useful to the 
enemy — will be diminished. I do not, however, see any 
objection to the report being shown in a way in which 
knowledge of it cannot get to the enemy. There is noth- 
ing in the report to conceal from people who are looking 
at the matter, and examining it from the point of view 
from which the House is examining it this afternoon. 
All that there is to be concealed is from the opposite 
point of view — that is, the enemy point of view. 

I pass from those figures to another -charge which is 
made, not, I understand, in the Debate here, not in all 
the Press, but in some organs of the Press, and by some 
persons outside, in a most offensive form, which is 
grossly unfair and untrue. It is that the Navy is doing 
its utmost to prohibit goods reaching the enemy, and 
that the Foreign Office is spoiling the work of the Navy. 
When ships are brought in by the Navy to a port with 
goods destined for the enemy, the Foreign Office, it is 
alleged, orders those ships to be released, and undoes 
the work which the Navy is doing. I must give the 
House an account of what is exactly the machinery. I 
do not say that in the first three months of the War, 

26 



before we had got our organisation complete, there was 
not a certain amount of confusion and overlapping, and 
that things were so well done as now. I will take the 
whole of last year up to the present date. What is the 
procedure ? One of the ships under the Admiralty brings 
into port a neutral merchant vessel carrying a cargo 
which the naval officers think may be destined for" the 
enemy. They have no adequate means of searching that 
cargo on the high seas ; it has to be done in port. Until 
you have got that vessel in port you cannot really form 
an opinion of what is the probable destination of the 
cargo. The ship is brought into port by the Navy. If 
that ship turns out to have goods destined not merely 
for a neutral port, but for bond fide consumption of a 
neutral country, without which that country would be 
starved of some supplies which it has every right to 
have, that cargo obviously ought to be released, and not 
put in the Prize Court at all. If, on the other hand, 
there is reason to suppose that that cargo is not des- 
tined for bond-fide neutral use, then undoubtedly it 
ought to be put in the Prize Court. That is settled by 
the Contraband Committee. 

The Contraband Committee is presided over at pres- 
ent by the Hon. and Learned Member for Leamington 
(Mr. Pollock), who, again, is one of those giving in- 
valuable service to the State. Before he undertook the 
chairmanship it was presided over by my Right Hon. 
and Learned Friend who is now the Solicitor-General, 
who, of course, had to give up that position when he 
became Solicitor-General, because it was impossible to 
combine it with his official work. How is the Committee 
composed ? Besides the Chairman, it is composed of one 
representative of the Foreign Office, one who represents 

27 



the Board of Trade and Customs combined, and two 
representatives of the Admiralty, and that Committee, 
which has acquired very great experience in the course 
of its work, settles the question of whether the ship, or 
any part of the cargo in the ship, ought to be put in the 
Prize Court, or whether it ought to be released and go 
forward. I believe that Committee has done its work 
admirably, and that neither the country nor the Navy 
has any reason but to be exceedingly grateful for the 
knowledge and ability it has shown and the pains it has 
taken. Can the decision of that Committee be interfered 
with? Of course it can be interfered with. The Gov- 
ernment can in any case say if such-and-such a ship, 
which the Committee thinks ought to be detained ought 
for special reasons to be released. I have made what 
inquiry I can, and, in accordance with my own recollec- 
tion, I think in the last year there have been three cases 
when ships have been dealt with or undertakings about 
ships have been given without consulting the Committee. 
Two of those ships were cases of ships which were 
released and sent back. Those two cases were discussed 
twice by the Cabinet, and those two particular ships 
were released for special reasons. The third case is 
that of a ship which was brought into port the other 
day — the "Stockholm," a Swedish vessel. It is a ship 
to which the Swedish people attach great importance. 
It is, I believe, the first ship of a new line, a passenger 
vessel. The detention of it must cause great inconve- 
nience, but it had on board a cargo which, I understand, 
the Contraband Committee had reason to suppose — I 
think rightly — was not all destined for use in Sweden, 
and might be sent on to the enemy. Anyhow, the de- 
tention of the vessel caused great inconvenience, and a 

28 



special appeal was made from the Swedish Government 
in regard to that particular vessel, and with regard to 
one part of the cargo a special assurance was given. 
Of course these things have to be done rapidly if they are 
to be done at all. If you are to release a vessel, and 
wish to avoid inconvenience, you must release it quickly ; 
and, after consulting the Prime Minister and the First 
Lord of the Admiralty, I sent a telegram to Stockholm 
saying that if we could receive assurances from the 
Swedish Government that the cargo, which seemed to us 
suspect, was destined for bona-fide use in Sweden, and 
that none of it would go on to the enemy, or set free 
an equivalent amount of corresponding material to go on 
to the enemy, the ship, in order to avoid inconvenience, 
was to be released at once. That undertaking was given 
without consulting the Contraband Committee. I am 
sorry to say, as far as I am concerned, we have not 
received an assurance, and, therefore, no action has been 
taken. That is the sort of case in which, unless you are 
to forfeit entirely the good will of neutrals, unless you 
are to take what I consider an unduly high-handed and 
provocative action, you ought to say to a neutral country 
which makes a special case of inconvenience caused in 
regard to a ship, "Give us assurances with regard to that 
cargo, and, rather than cause that inconvenience, we will 
be prepared to release the ship." That, I believe, repre- 
sents the extent of interference with the Contraband 
Committee with regard to the release of ships in the last 
twelve months. 

Now I would ask, really, is it not time after that that 
these reckless figures and these reckless statements should 
not be made with regard to the action of the Foreign 
Office or any Department of the Government? What, 

29 



is it supposed, is the effect upon the Navy of making 
charges of that sort? 

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Balfour) : 
Hear, hear! 

Sir E. Grey: If the charges made were true, and I 
was a naval officer, I should want to shoot the Secre- 
tary of State for Foreign Affairs. But that is not the 
thing that matters. The thing that matters is the dispir- 
iting effect it has on our seamen. There never was a 
time in the whole history of this country when we — and 
when I say "we," I mean our Allies, too — have owed a 
greater tribute of gratitude and admiration to the Navy 
than for the work done during this War. To those of 
us who have to bear the brunt of much work, and face 
much difficulty, the knowledge of the efficiency, the 
courage, the spirit and the patriotism which animate the 
whole Navy is an upholding and a supporting thought, 
and there ought not to be statements of that kind, en- 
tirely unfounded as they are, put about, leading the 
Navy to suppose that the work which they are doing 
for the country, or any part of their work, is being un- 
done by the Government, or any Department of the 
Government. 

The task of the Foreign Office in this matter is a much 
more complicated one and much more burdensome than 
people know. The Foreign Office is not burdened as a 
Department with deciding about the release of particu- 
lar ships. That, as I have shown, if it is not done by 
the Contraband Committee, is done by the Cabinet, or, 
in a very special case, by Ministers ; but it is not done 
departmentally now. What is the work the Foreign 
Office has to do? The Foreign Office has to do its best 
to retain the good will of the neutrals. Now, supposing 

30 



you know at the Foreign Office that the War Office, the 
Admiralty, the Ministry of Munitions, and perhaps one 
or more of our Allies are specially anxious that you 
should maintain open communication with some particu- 
lar neutral country for strategical reasons, or for the 
sake of supplies which you get from them. We are con- 
stantly being told that certain supplies which come from 
abroad are absolutely essential for the Ministry of Muni- 
tions. The Board of Trade know that certain other 
supplies from abroad are absolutely necessary to carry 
on the industries of this country. The business of the 
Foreign Office is to keep the diplomatic relations such 
that there is no fear of these supplies being interfered 
with, and we have got at the same tinte to defend, to 
explain, and to justify to neutral countries all the inter- 
ference that has taken place with trade destined for the 
enemy, which cannot be done without some direct or 
indirect interference also with neutral countries. That 
is .not an easy matter. It is one in which the Foreign 
Office is constantly engaged, and I think the House must 
recognise, when Members are pressing, as they are quite 
right in pressing, this question of supplies to the 
enemy, and saying, quite rightly, that the interests of 
this country come first, that you must also be very 
careful that you do not unduly or wrongfully interfere 
with the rights of neutrals to get supplies which are 
necessary for their own consumption. You have no 
right to make neutrals suffer. I would like to consider 
— and it is rather germane to the case — what more can 
be done than is being done consistently with the rights 
of neutrals and also with effect? The Hon. Member 
who moved this Motion sketched out what he thought 
ought to be done, and I think the Hon. Member who 

31 



seconded the Motion agreed with him. The suggestion 
was that there should be three Hnes of blockade, one 
extending to the coast of Norway, one across the Chan- 
nel, and one across the Straits of Gibraltar. If you 
establish those lines of blockade you must do it con- 
sistently with the rights of neutrals. You cannot estab- 
lish those lines of blockade and say that no ships shall 
go through them at all, or you will stop all traffic of 
every kind to the neutral ports inside. You would stop 
all traffic to Christiania, Stockholm, Rotterdam, Copen- 
hagen — all traffic whatever. Well, of course, that is not 
consistent with the rights of neutrals. You cannot shut 
off all supplies to neutral countries. You must not try 
to make the grass grow in the streets of neutral ports. 
You must let through those lines vessels bond-fide des- 
tined for the neutral ports with bond-fide cargoes. Nor 
can you put every cargo in your Prize Court, and say 
it is not to go on to a neutral port until the Prize Court 
has examined it. The congestion in this country would 
be such that you could not deal with it if you did that, 
and you have no right to say that the British Prize Court 
is to be the neck of the bottle through which all trade 
has to pass. If we had gone, or attempted to go, as 
far as that, I think the War possibly m.ight have been 
over by now, but it would have been over because the 
whole world would have risen against us, and we, and 
our Allies too, would have collapsed under the general 
resentment of the whole world. If you establish those 
lines, then the ship to neutral ports with a bond-fide 
neutral cargo must be allowed to go through. There- 
fore what I understand is meant when you say blockade 
is that you are going to discriminate, and not stop every- 
thing that is going through your lines, but only stop 

32 



what is destined to the enemy and let go through what 
is for neutrals. That is what is being done at the present 
time, and that is actually the action of the Admiralty 
to-day. The ships when brought in are dealt with by 
the method which I have described, and no ships are 
going through to German ports at all. Therefore that 
is actually being done. We are, as I think one Hon. 
Member said, filtering the trade which passes through 
with the object of stopping all the enemy trade. We 
are stopping the trade coming out, and we are also stop- 
ping the imports! ; more than that you cannot do. You 
cannot do more than stop all imports into the enemy 
country and all exports coming out. 

We are applying the doctrine of continuous voyage, 
and it is being applied now. On what other ground are 
goods to neutral ports held up but on the ground of 
continuous voyage? Do not let it be supposed by adopt- 
ing the actual proposal made this afternoon we are going 
to prevent goods reaching Germany more efifectually 
than at the present time, except in one respect. If you 
had established the old technical blockade you would no 
doubt have been entitled to confiscate more largely ships 
and goods than at the present time. While you stop 
now and detain them, and do not let the goods go 
through, you do not confiscate as largely as you would 
if you had had the old technical blockade. One of the 
reasons why this change is recommended is that it is 
going to be more palatable to the neutrals, but you are 
not going to make it more palatable by making the pen- 
alties more severe. What we want to do is to prevent 
goods reaching or coming from the enemy country, and 
that is what we are doing. We want to do it, and we 
believe that under the Order in Council it is being done. 

33 



Do not let it be supposed that the Order in Council does 
something special either to validate or invalidate. The 
Mover of this Motion spoke as if an Order in Council 
was cne thing and a blockade was another. What would 
have happened if we had adopted his plan would be that 
we should simply substitute one Order in Council for 
the present one. The blockade would be established by 
the Order in Council. An Order in Council does not 
make a thing good or bad. It is merely our way under 
our form of Constitution of announcing to the world 
what we are doing. • 

Mr. S. Benn: Will the Right Hon. Gentleman deal 
with the point that the Allied nations should declare the 
blockade, rather than England by an Order in Council? 

Sir E. Grey : That is a very pertinent question, but 
it again shows a misapprehension. If we all declared 
a blockade the French Government would declare a 
blockade in their own way, according to their Constitu- 
tion, and we should declare it in our way. What is 
happening at the present moment, to carry out the policy 
of last March, is that certain instructions are issued to 
the British Navy. The French Government issued pre- 
cisely the same instructions to their Navy, and so, if we 
and the Allied nations declared a blockade they would 
issue their own Proclamation of a blockade, and we 
should issue ours. That is the way it would be done, 
precisely the same as now. The French have issued 
exactly the same Proclamation on their behalf as we 
have in regard to our Proclamation of March. The 
only thing is that you have under the British Constitu- 
tion to call it an Order in Council, although other people 
may call it whatever they please. You would not have 
any change in that respect. I quite agree that you want 

34 



common action with your Allies, and that is precisely 
what we have been having ever since last March with 
the French Government. If anyone wishes to realise the 
justification for our present policy they have only got to 
read the correspondence which has been published with 
the United States already. If they wish to read the 
objections taken to it, and the objections which any sort 
of policy might lead to, they can read the Notes from 
the United States Government to this country, especially 
the last Note which has been published, and which has 
not yet been answered. 

We are going to answer the last Note of the United 
States Government, but we are considering the whole 
question, and we are going to do it in consultation, in 
the first instance, with the French Government, who are 
concerned in this matter. That consultation is taking 
place at the present time with a view to pursuing not 
merely the same policy, but justifying it with the same 
arguments, and putting the same case before the world. 
We may also consider it, perhaps with some of the other 
Allies, who may have to be actively concerned in carry- 
ing out the policy. At present we are in consultation 
with the French Government on the subject. I can 
only say, with regard to neutrals, that we are perfectly 
ready to examine any method of carrying out the policy 
of last March, that is what we believe is the belligerent 
right of stopping eneriiy trade, either to or from. We 
are ready to examine any other method of carrying 
that out, than the one we are now adopting, which we 
are convinced will be effective, and which in form is 
likely to be more agreeable to neutrals, or in practice 
less inconvenient to them, so long as it will be eflFective. 
But do not let us hastily adopt changes of form unless 

35 



we are quite sure that they are not going to impair the 
effectiveness of what we are doing, and that they are 
not going to involve us in legal difficulties more compli- 
cated than those which at present exist. 

I must say to the House that at the present moment 
one of the greatest concerns of the Government is to 
explain and justify to neutrals what we are doing to 
avoid friction with them, and to get such agreements, 
not with their Governments, but with the various people 
interested in trade, as will make it easy to distinguish 
between goods destined for the neutrals, and goods in- 
tended for the enemy. I said just now that we have not 
any right to make neutrals suffer. By that I mean that 
you have no right to deprive neutrals of goods which 
are genuinely intended for their own use. Inconve- 
nience it is impossible to avoid, and you cannot help it. 
What I would say to neutrals is this: — We cannot give 
up this right to interfere with enemy 'trade ; that we 
must maintain and that we must press. We know, and 
it has always been admitted, that you cannot exercise 
that right without in some cases considerable inconve- 
nience to neutrals — delay to their trade, and in some 
cases mistakes which it is impossible to avoid. What I 
would say to neutrals is this: There is one main ques- 
tion to be answered by them. Do they admit our right 
to apply the principles which were applied by the Amer- 
ican Government in the War between North and South? 
Do they admit our right to apply those principles to 
modern conditions and to do our best to prevent trade 
with the enemy through neutral countries? If they say 
"Yes," as they are bound in fairness to say, then I would 
say to them, "Do let chambers of commerce, or what- 
ever it may be in neutral countries, do their best to 

36 



make it easy for us to distinguish." Take the case of 
the "Stockholm," the Swedish ship, the other day. 
When it was pointed out what great inconvenience we 
were causing by detaining that ship it was also suggested 
that in order to avoid detention in future there should 
be some understanding or some means of making it sure 
to us that the cargo was bond fide a Swedish cargo and 
not going to the enemy. That is the sort of thing we 
welcome. 

What we ask of them, as we cannot avoid causing 
inconvenience and in some cases loss, is that they will 
help us to distinguish by making the distinction bond- 
fide trade and thereby minimise the inconvenience. If, 
on the other hand, the answer is that we are not entitled 
to do that, or to attempt to prevent trade through the 
neutral countries to the enemy, then I must say definitely 
that if neutral countries were to take that line it is a 
departure from neutrality. I do not understand that they 
do take that line. It is quite true that there are things 
in the last Note from the United States Government 
which, if we were to concede them, would make it in 
practice absolutely impossible to prevent goods, even 
contraband, going wholesale through neutral countries 
to the enemy. If you were to concede all that was 
asked in the last Note of the United States you might 
just as well give up trying to prevent goods, even con- 
traband goods, going through neutral countries to the 
enemy, but I do not understand that that is the intention 
or attitude of the United States Government or of any 
other Government. After all, I would say this: If there 
was a war in which a belligerent was entitled to use to 
the utmost every power, or every fair development of a 
power which has been exercised by any belligerent in 

37 



previous wars, and recognised by international law, that 
applies to our Allies and ourselves in this Vv'^ar. As to 
the complaints as to our interference with trade, what 
has Germany done? She has declared arbitrarily a part 
of the high seas a war zone, and in that zone she has 
continually sunk merchant vessels without notice or 
warning, with no precautions for the safety of the crews, 
sowing it with mines which sink merchant vessels, neu- 
trals as well as belligerents. The sinking of merchant 
vessels is not confined to belligerents. A neutral vessel 
is sunk again and again by German submarines without 
warning, without inquiry as to the nature of its cargo, 
and without regard even to its destination, because they 
have been sunk proceeding from one neutral port to 
another neutral port and not coming to this country at 
all. In view of the criticism made to-day upon the action 
of the British Government and its Allies in interfering 
with trade, I would ask what would have been said by 
neutrals if we had done that? What would have been 
said if, instead of bringing cargoes into our Prize Court, 
bringing in the ship with the crew perfectly safe, the 
ship undamaged, the cargo untouched, examining it, and 
in some cases letting it go forward when satisfied that 
it is not destined for the enemy, and even in the worst 
case putting it into our Prize Court, so that if it turns 
out that we have made a mistake there can be a claim 
for compensation and the whole of the evidence can 
be examined — if, instead of doing that, we had sunk 
neutral vessels without regard to the character of their 
cargoes and without regard to the safety of the lives of 
innocent and defenceless crews? [An Hon. Member: 
"And passengers!"] Well, of course, in regard to pas- 
sengers, as the House knows, there has been consider- 

38 



able controversy between the United States Government 
and the enemy Government. They have taken up the 
point with regard to passengers where their own inter- 
ests are concerned, but, with regard to the rest, the 
sinking of even neutral merchant vessels in this way, so 
far as I know nothing like the kind of protest has been 
made by neutral Governments that has been made with 
regard to some part of our own procedure which we 
believe to be perfectly justifiable in law, and which is, 
beyond all doubt, perfectly humane. 

I understand that Germany justifies her action of that 
description by saying that it is retaliation upon us for 
stopping her food supply. The great case of stopping 
food supplies which Germany made the starting-ground 
for her illegal and inhuman policy being the fact that 
we detained the "Wilhelmina" early last February with 
foodstuffs to Germany. Was that the first instance of 
interfering with food supplies destined for the civil 
population in this War ? Before that Germany had sunk 
two neutral vessels with cargoes of foodstuffs coming 
to open ports for the civil population of this country. 
She had requisitioned the food supply of the civil popu- 
lation of Belgium, and I understand that to-day confisca- 
tion goes on in the occupied districts of Poland. It was 
not till a powerful international organisation came into 
force to relieve the starvation of Belgians, whose food 
had been requisitioned by Germany in their own coun- 
try — not till then — that there was any protection for the 
food of the civil population in the districts occupied by 
Germany. What right has Germany to complain of 
measures taken to interfere with her food supplies when, 
from the beginning of this War, her armed cruisers, so 
long as they could keep the seas, sunk neutral merchant 

39 



vessels with food for the civil population of this coun- 
try, and in effect treated food where they found it as 
absolute contraband? That being so, what we say to 
neutrals is that we are entitled to claim the utmost rights 
to which we can fairly found a claim upon the recognised 
practice — practice which we ourselves have recognised — 
of other belligerents in previous wars. 

Let us also bear this in mind. I do not say that we 
are exercising these measures of blockade the least bit 
more for our Allies than for ourselves. If we had no 
Allies I have no doubt that we should have done pre- 
cisely the same thing, and, as the House says, it is our 
duty to this country to do it as effectively as possible. 
But do not let us forget that it is our duty to our Allies 
as well. We are in this War with Allies, a War forced 
upon Europe after every effort had been made to find 
a settlement which could perfectly easily have been 
found either by conference as we suggested, or by refer- 
ence to The Hague Tribunal, as the Emperor of Russia 
suggested. Prussian militarism would not have any 
other settlement but war. We are now in this War 
with our Allies. I say nothing of what the actual con- 
ditions of peace will be, because those are things which 
we must discuss with our Allies and settle in common 
with them. But the great object to be attained — and, 
until it is attained, the War must proceed — is that there 
shall not again be this sort of militarism in Europe, which 
in time of peace causes the whole of the Continent dis- 
comfort by its continual menace, and then, when it thinks 
the moment has come that suits itself, plunges the Con- 
tinent into war. The whole of our resources are en- 
gaged in the War. Our maximum effort, whether it be 
military, naval, or financial, is at the disposal of our 

40 



Allies in carrying on this contest. With them we shall 
see it through to the end, and we shall slacken no effort. 
Part of that effort is and must remain — whether it be 
in the interests of ourselves or of our Allies — in the in- 
terests of the great cause, the great transcending cause 
which unites us all together, which makes us feel that 
national life will not be safe, that individual life will not 
be worth living, unless we can achieve successfully the 
object of this War, — that in that common cause we shall 
continue to exert all our efforts to put the maximum 
pressure possible upon the enemy; and part of that 
pressure must be and continue to be doing the most we 
can to prevent supplies going to or from the enemy, 
using the Navy to its full power, and in common with 
our Allies sparing nothing, whether it be military, naval, 
or financial effort, which this country can afford to see 
the thing through with them to the end. 



41 



LIST OF PUBLICATIONS 

Nos. 1-83 (April, 1907, to December, 1914). Including papers by Baron d'Estournelles 
de Constant, George Trumbull Ladd, Elihu Root, Barrett Wendell, Charles E. Jefferson, 
Seth Low, William James, Andrew Carnegie, Pope Pius X, Heinrich Lammasch, Norman 
Angell, Charles W. Eliot, Sir Oliver Lodge, Lord Haldane and others. A list of titles and 
authors will be sent on application. 

86. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. IV. 

I. Turkish Official Documents. November, 1914. 

II. Speech of the Imperial Chancellor to the Reichstag. December 2, 1914. 
III. The Belgian Gray Book. (July 24, August 29, 1914.) January, 1913. 

87. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. V. 

The French Yellow Book, Translated and Prepared for Parliament by the British 
Government. February, 1915. 

88. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. V. 

The French Yellow Book, Translated and Prepared for Parliament by the British 
Government. March, 1915. 

89. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. VI. 

The Austrian Red Book, Official Translation Prepared by the Austrian Govern- 
ment. April, 1915. 

90. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. VII. 

The Serbian Blue Book. May, 1913. 

91. The Fundamental Causes of the World War, by Alfred H. Fried. June, 1915. 

92. To the Citizens of the Belligerent States, by G. Heymans. July, 1913. 

93. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. VIII. 

Italy's Green Book, Translation approved by Royal Italian Embassy, Washing- 
ton, D. C. August, 1913. 

94. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. IX. 

Official Correspondence Between the United States and Germany. 
I. Declaration of London, August 6, 1914 — October 24, 1 9 14. 

II. Contraband of War, September 4, 1914 — April 26, 1913. 

III. Restraints of Commerce, February 6, 1915 — September 7, igiS- 

IV. CaseoftheWilliamP.Frye, March3i.i9i3— July30.i9i5- September, 191S. 

PS. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. X. 

Official Correspondence Between the United States and Great Britain. 
I. Declaration of London, August 6, 1914 — October 22, 1914. 
II. Contraband of War, August 3, 1914 — April 10, 1913. 

III. Restraints of Commerce, December 26, 1914 — July 31, 1913. 

IV. Case of the Wilhelmina, February 13, 1915 — April 8, igiS- October, 191S. 



SCI 



International Conciliation 

Published monthly by the 
American Association for International Conciliation. 
Entered as second class matter at New York, N. Y., 
Postoffice, February 23, 1909, under act of July 16, 1894 



SUPER-RESISTANCE 




c_ 






BY 

HAROLD C. GODDARD 

PROFESSOR OF ENGLISH, SWARTHMORE COLLEGE. 
SWARTHMORE. PENNSYLVANIA 

MAY. 1916 
No. 102 



American Association for International Conciliation 

Sub-Station 84 (407 West II 7th Street) 

New York City 



It is the aim of the Association for International Con- 
ciliation to awaken interest and to seek co-operation 
in the movement to promote international good will. 
This movement depends for its ultimate success upon 
increased international understanding, appreciation, 
and sympathy. To this end, documents are printed 
and widely circulated, giving information as to the 
progress of the movement and as to matters connected 
therewith, in order that individual citizens, the news- 
paper press, and organizations of various kinds may 
have accurate information on these subjects readily 
available. 

It is the aim of the Association to avoid, as far as 
possible, contentious questions, and in particular 
questions relating to the domestic policy of any given 
nation. Attention is to be fixed rather upon those 
underlying principles of international law, international 
conduct, and international organization, which must 
be agreed upon and enforced by all nations if peaceful 
civilization is to continue and to be advanced. A list 
of publications will be found on pages 21 and 22. 

Harold Goddard was born in Worcester, Massachusetts, in 
1878. He graduated from Amherst College in 1900 and taught 
mathematics there for the next two years. He then studied 
English at Columbia University, receiving the degree of Doctor 
of Philosophy in 1908. He taught English at Northwestern 
University and at Swarthmore College, where, since 1909, he 
has been Professor of English. He is the author of " Studies 
in New England Transcendentalism," and has contributed from 
time to time to the magazines. 



SUPER-RESISTANCE 



A NEW NAME FOR AN OLD REALITY 

Non-resistance is at present the most misleading word 
in the EngHsh language. Since the outbreak of the war, 
it has deceived thousands. During the discussion of 
preparedness in this country, it will deceive thousands 
more. Great is the power of words. In the beginning 
is the word. And in the end, too, generally, is the word. 
For the simple reason that ninety-nine men out of a 
hundred take every word at its face value. 

The origin of the term non-resistance is the English 
Bible, and the English Bible is usually infallible in things 
poetic. But this is the exception. For the word non- 
resistance is negative, while the thing itself is the most 
positive thing in the world. Fooled by its appearance, 
friends and foes of the idea it is supposed to embody 
vie with each other in diluting a mighty reality into an 
excellent substitute for nothing They persist, for in- 
stance, in setting non-resistance over against force — as 
if it were not itself the most powerful of forces ! They 
dwell on its passivity — as if it were not activity incar- 
nate ! They insist on its submissiveness (its enemies 
branding it as servility, its friends extolling it as a kind 
of high patience that stands meekly aside while material 
forces sweep to their destruction) — as if its one great 
end were not the reduction of other forces, the bending 
of other wills, to its own ! And so they continue heap- 



ing up its negative qualities until we come to conceive 
it as a cowed, spiritless, anaemic creature little fitted to 
inhabit this proud, pulsing, red-blooded world. Indeed 
we are lucky if we do not come to identify it with its 
exact opposite : cowardice. 

What is needed is a fresh nomenclature. For my 
present purpose, then, I intend to surrender the unhappy 
term non-resistance to one set of its misinterpreters, let- 
ting it stand for the false, abject, cowardly type of non- 
resistance ; while the true non-resistance I will call, what 
it is, super-resistance. An illustration will render the 
distinction clear. * 

THE THREE METHODS OF RESISTANCE 

If you come home and find your youngest child shriek- 
ing at the top of his lungs for no apparent reason, there 
are, roughly speaking, three methods of handling the 
situation. First, you may turn him over and spank him, 
shut him up in the closet, threaten him with bears, bogies, 
or policemen ; and so silence or attempt to silence him 
by assertion of your superior strength. That, whether 
the force be physical or spiritual, I call the method of 
resistance. Secondly, you may offer no opposition to his 
uproar, accept it passively by making no comment, pay- 
ing no attention, retreating into the next room, thus 
leaving him in full possession of the floor, to cry himself 
out or otherwise solve his own difficulty. That, in our 
new nomenclature, I call the method of non-resistance. 
Thirdly, putting all irritation out of your heart and all 
sarcasm out of your voice, you may (if you are able) 
turn into a child yourself for a moment and sweep buoy- 
antly into the room with the proposal that the two of 
you join forces and see if you can together make a sound 
loud enough to knock the clock off the mantel — with 



that or whatever more ingenious burst of imagination 
you can command on the spur of the moment. That, 
if it succeeds in turning tears to smiles, I call the method 
of super-resistance. 

(I do not assert, of course, that in this particular 
sphere of life the third method is always possible or 
best. The time, the place, and the child must be taken 
into account. But who can doubt that in general it 
represents the highest form of resistance of the three?) 

The illustration I have used is a trivial one and it 
cannot be put on all fours (I chose it because nations 
are children, and the key to their conduct is in that fact), 
but it embodies principles that are far-reaching, and it 
exposes at once the absurdity of speaking of this third 
kind of resistance as passive, submissive, or lacking 
force. So far from lacking force, it is nothing but force 
itself further evolved, refined, etherealized. In moments 
of high physical well-being and in the face of trifling 
opposition, the normal man practices it spontaneously. 
To practice it at critical and nerve-trying moments and 
in the face of great obstacles is a mark of the highest 
order of humanity. 

The test of super-resistance is its success — not its 
success in any vulgar sense but its success in turning into 
its own direction the force which it resists. Passive 
non-obedience may often thwart the power that com- 
mands, but it rarely converts it. Usually it only infuri- 
ates and so intensifies it. The person, man or child, 
who, when vou ask him to do something, sits still and 
says nothing, is vastly more exasperating than the one 
who says, 'T won't," or otherwise hits back. If your 
request was reasonable, his lack of consideration mad- 
dens you. If it was unreasonable, you feel your guilt 
and are inwardly perturbed. In either case, if you imi- 



tate the noble example before you and hold your tongue, 
the non-resistance on both sides is complete. But the 
problem is not solved. It is only aggravated. You 
know, both of you, in your hearts, that you had better 
have come to blows. A symbol, and at the same time 
a reductio ad absurdum, of passive resistance is the 
case, of which there have been many instances, of the 
man and wife who live half a lifetime under the same 
roof without speaking to each other. Such, with rare 
exceptions, is (he futility of non-resistance. Precisely 
the opposite of all this is true of super-resistance, which 
works by winning over the opposing will until it freely 
acquiesces. But the secret of its method cannot be ex- 
plained. It is a matter of personality. It can only be 
observed, and, peradventure, caught. 

EXAMPLES OF SUPER-RESISTANCE 

If we could but free them from their mist of inherited 
associations, the supreme instances of this power would 
still be found in the life of Christ. Christ, with one 
glance, sending Peter out to weep bitterly ; Christ work- 
ing in the heart of Judas until, "he repented himself . . . 
and cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and 
departed, and went and hanged himself;" Christ dis- 
turbing the peace of Pilate so that at last, if we may 
accept the spirit of tradition, he, too, took his own life; 
Christ, after death, overturning the Roman Empire it- 
self ; — these are examples, not of a power that did not 
resist, but of one that resisted miraculously and 
supremely. 

For modern illustrations of the same power, the 
American turns instinctively to the life of Lincoln: 
Lincoln encountering selfish ambition and treachery in 

6 



his own cabinet and transforming the scorners and plot- 
ters into ardent admirers and loyal co-workers ; or, most 
marvellous of all, Lincoln a potent presence at work 
behind the material resistance of the Northern armies 
with the result that the American Civil War has become 
one of the few wars of history the wounds of which 
bid fair to heal completely. 

But it is literature even more than biography that 
abounds in examples of super-resistance, for it is the 
poets who seize and incarnate forces toward which the 
rest of humanity are vaguely groping. Some people 
seem to imagine that the literary vogue of this subject 
begins with Tolstoi. They could hardly be more mis- 
taken. To go no further back or farther afield, English 
literature from Chaucer's tale of Patient Griselda (the 
most misunderstood of stories) to Shaw's Androcles and 
the Lion (which bids fair to rival Chaucer's work in 
befuddling the critics) never loses its interest in the 
higher modes of resistance. Shakespeare's "mercy," for 
example, is almost an Elizabethan synonym for super- 
force. Of his tragedies, the most sublime, Lear, and the 
most pathetic, Othello, are in a peculiar sense studies in 
super-resistance. It was super-resistance that trans- 
formed Lear from a tyrant into a saint. It was super- 
resistance that extorted from the dying villain, Edmund, 
the cry: 

"I pant for life : some good I mean to do 
Despite of mine own nature." 

It was super-resistance that made the distracted Othello 
beg to be washed in gulfs of liquid fire. 

And I mentioned Bernard Shaw. The heroes and 
heroines of Shaw's plays — Dick Dudgeon, Julius Caesar, 
Lady Cicely, Major Barbara — walk like gods and god- 



desses through their worlds, doing what they will and 
bending others to their wills as by enchantment, to the 
utter bewilderment of the ordinary men and women who 
fail to understand the super-force by which these amaz- 
ing characters have their way, "I can see," says Cap- 
tain Brassbound to one of the most purely delightful 
of them, Lady Cicely, "I can see that you have some clue 
to the world that makes all its difficulties easy to you; 
but I'm not clever enough to seize it. . . . I'm stupid. 
. . . Since you saw me for the first time . . . I've heard 
you say nothing that didn't make me laugh, or make me 
feel friendly, as well as telling me what to think and 
what to do." There is no secret about Lady Cicely's 
clue to the world. It was simply her abounding love 
for everybody. The secret is not what it was but how 
to get it. I imagine the best first step toward getting 
it is to come in contact with a few Lady Cicelys. 

SPURIOUS vs. GENUINE FORMS OF SUPER-RESISTANCE 

For super-resistance, as these examples show, does 
not consist in the physical act but in the personal rela- 
tionship between the actors. Slaves and heroes often 
act in the same way. You can turn the other cheek to 
all eternity without being a Christian, without being any- 
thing but a snivelling coward. Super-resistance does not 
consist in letting the man who took away your coat have 
your cloak also. It consists in a genuine desire that he 
may be warm. It does not consist in going two miles 
with the man who compelled you to go one. It consists 
in striking up such an intimacy with him that you both 
forget to mark the mile-stones. 

Now to do these things is exceedingly difficult. But 
to do things that externally resemble them is relatively 
easy. It is easy, for instance, to return good for evil 

8 



for the sake of making your enemy feel mean — if you are 
a hypocrite. It is' easy to return good for evil out of a 
sense of "duty" — if you are a prig. It is easy to make 
no return at all for evil — if you are a dead man. (In 
this last case, all you have to do is to close your eyes 
and fold your hands as if you were in your coffin, lock- 
ing the lid on the inside if the strain becomes too great.) 
To practice any one of these spurious forms of super- 
resistance requires no exceptional endowment. But to 
practice super-resistance itself calls for angelic qualities. 
The result is that he who attempts to practice it with- 
out the power succeeds only in producing a forgery — 
as, for centuries, ordinary human beings have attempted 
to be Christians and have succeeded too often only in 
becoming slaves. Non-resistance, indeed, might be de- 
fined as super-resistance that fails. Super-resistance 
might be defined as the true coin of which non-resistance 
is the counterfeit. Super-resistance means mastery. 
Non-resistance means lying down, falling under the Jug- 
gernaut, letting the powers that possess the world 
trample their victim in the mire. Perhaps the most 
tragic delusion of Christian history has been the belief 
that non-resistance can regenerate the evil-doer. If it 
could, the slave-drivers of the world would be its most 
regenerate class : American capitalists would be angels, 
Prussian junkers and Russian bureaucrats archangels, 
and Oriental priests and despots gods. It cannot do it. 
The force that can regenerate the evil-doer is super- 
resistance. 

A present-day illustration of the confusion that comes 
out of a failure to make this distinction is what we may 
call the paradox of the "pardoning governor." Why 
is it that one governor by a copious use of the pardoning 
power increases crime through a community while an- 

9 



other governor helps to wipe it out by the same method ? 
Because, generally, the first is practicing non-resistance 
while the second is practicing super-resistance. But a 
better example still is the prison warden. There have 
been a number of wardens in the United States who 
have had conspicuous success in relaxing the rigors of 
prison discipline, extending the use of parole, bringing 
about the moral reform of individual prisoners. Each 
has been hailed as the discoverer of the penal system- of 
the future. But the system tried elsewhere does not 
work — or works indifferently. Why? Because the 
secret lies not in the system but in the man. 

SUPER-KESISTANCE A FORM OF LIFE AND NOT A CREED 

Just here resides the central delusion on this whole 
subject, for it is precisely this idea — the supposition 
that because one man can practice super-resistance 
therefore anyone else can readily pick up the trick — 
that would dilute the mighty reality of super-resistance 
into the impotent creed of non-resistance. 

Super-resistance is not to be had from any rule or 
formula. None of the worth while things of life is, 
though all of them are supposed to be, by little minds. 
Such open-sesames, indeed, can be made to sound very 
plausible. A sure formula for learning to swim, for 
example, is to jump into deep water and feel no fear. 
A certain rule for walking a narrow path on the edge 
of a precipice is to walk it just as you would a path 
of the same width across a pasture. Both prescriptions 
are absolutely infallible. But the average man will try 
them at his peril. The fact is, of course, that they are 
not rules to be followed at all. They are powers, skill, 
arts, to be achieved. The exceptional individual attains 

10 



them at a leap ; the ordinary man must make them his by 
determined and laborious practice. 

It is perfectly true that it is better, especially at a 
crisis, to fail through putting too high than through put- 
ting too low an estimate upon our powers. But it is bet- 
ter yet to succeed by estimating those powers aright. 
There may be no limit to the power of that faith that 
can remove mountains. But there are very strict limits 
to the power of you and me and the next man to com- 
mand that faith at any given moment. These two truths 
are frequently confused. The man who, possessing no 
fear, throws away his stick in the presence of an enemy 
often makes the mistake of supposing that that act, 
which in reality is the mere sign and result of his fear- 
lessness, is its cause. He leaps therefore to the con- 
clusion that whoever else will throw away his stick 
will be endowed with like fearlessness. But it will not 
always work. Not that the powerful effect of bodily 
acts and attitude upon the mind is denied. Quite the 
contrary ! But these, to reach in and permanently affect 
character, must usually be long persisted in. And. the 
crisis may come before the habit is fixed. The lion- 
tamer may know that any man who keeps calm and looks 
the lion in the eye is safe in his cage, and he may be 
able to carry his knowledge into practice. But that does 
not mean that, on the strength of that knowledge, he 
should advise any casual by-stander to try the same ex- 
periment. It would be a counsel of lunacy. 

PEACE-PREACHERS AND PEACE-MAKERS 

And yet counsels of just this sort are abroad in the 
land today. Indeed, I have dwelt on these different 



modes of individual resistance, not for their own sakes, 
but because they contain the key, I believe, to any in- 
telligent discussion of the questions of preparedness and 
international peace. 

Nations, like men, have open to them three funda- 
mental methods of meeting a force that menaces them 
from without : resistance — the attempt to overwhelm that 
force by a greater force acting in the opposite direction ; 
non-resistance — the attempt to frustrate that force by 
letting it exhaust itself through encountering no obsta- 
cles; and super-resistance — the attempt to convert that 
force by turning it into the opposite direction through 
the attraction of an imaginative substitute. The advo- 
cates of the first method, in its pure form, are called 
militarists. The advocates of the second and third 
methods are called, indiscriminately, pacifists. But if 
the first part of our discussion has been of any avail 
the identity of name will not blind us to the fact that 
the advocates of national non-resistance and the advo- 
cates of national super-resistance are diametrically op- 
posed. Indeed, the abyss that divides them is f^r pro- 
founder than that which separates either of them from 
the militarist. 

The average non-resistant pacifist prides himself on 
the doctrine that national morality should differ in no 
way from the best individual morality. It is true. But 
it is precisely this type of pacifist who forgets that truth 
most grievously in fashioning his own philosophy. As 
in the sphere of personal morality, he pins his faith to 
the belief that an end can be put to conflict by certain 
acts or refusals to act, forgetting that peace with honor 
and without clash of arms can come to a nation, as the 
corresponding state can come to an individual, only 

12 



through a clear ascendency in super-force over the na- 
tions that would attack it. 

And even if he escape the first error of the believer 
in non-resistance, he generally falls into the second. He 
preaches pacifism as if it were a truth that could be had 
for the asking, a rule that could be followed, a power 
that could come from the mere act of subscribing to a 
creed. He talks about its "acceptance" or "adoption," 
when, if he talk at all, he should talk about its practice 
or attainment. He advocates a dogma, when he should 
be creating a spirit. He attempts to turn into a principle 
what should remain a form of life. Let him look up his 
own name in the dictionary and he will discover that it is 
his part to make, not to preach, peace. Would we could 
always keep that distinction clear — ^between the peace- 
makers and the peace-preachers ! As of old, it is the 
peace-makers that shall be called the children of God. 

The peace-preacher is fond of declaring that it is 
righteousness that exalteth a nation — which is true and 
admirable. But he generally manages to imply that if 
a nation will only scrap its navy, it will thereby be ex- 
alted — which does not follow at all. Righteousness is 
no such negative thing. The mistake is exactly the mis- 
take of supposing that the mere act of throwing away 
his gun will endow even a coward with a personal mag- 
netism that can look down a wild beast or charm the 
heart of a highwayman. It is a delusion. These mirac- 
ulous powers, national or individual, do not come at 
any such waving of a wand. 

We have heard more than once since the outbreak of 
the war that if the Belgians and the French instead of 
resisting the invasion of the Germans had offered no ob- 
stacles, but had welcomed them hospitably to their cities, 
all would have been well with Belgium and France. 

13 



Now such an observation is arrant nonsense or pro- 
found wisdom according to the interpretation placed 
upon it. If the statement is purely hypothetical, if it 
means that two whole nations meeting a third invading 
nation in a spirit of complete human understanding and 
brotherly love would be sufficient to disarm it, the ob- 
servation is true, though it is no more practically help- 
ful than the observation that if France and Belgium 
had been inhabited solely by men of the type of Christ, 
St. Francis, and Shelley, there would have been no war. 
If, however, the statement is practical, if it means that 
it was within the power of the Belgian and French 
nations of August, 1914, to receive the invaders in this 
hospitable spirit and that they should have done so, the 
remark is the merest insanity. You might as well say 
that France should have had an army of 15,000,000 to 
meet the invader. The unanswerable retort in both 
cases, though in different senses, is the same : France 
didn't have the men. 

All this is not to imply for a moment that the pacifist 
who uses this argument may not himself be a man in 
this higher sense. I have the honor of knowing more 
than one Quaker, who, if this country were wholly un- 
armed, would, I am confident, stand up in the face of 
a foreign invader and be shot, not like a slave but like 
a hero, if the alternative were to spill human blood him- 
self. (What he would do if he saw his wife and children 
lined up to be shot, or worse, I prefer not to ask.) All 
honor to the man who can live up to such a creed, pro- 
vided, always, as I believe he would, he could unnerve 
the soul of his enemy by his act. But surely such 
power of self-control should constitute for that Quaker 
no excuse to ask that this country should disarm itself, 
if he has to confess to himself that, under circumstances 

14 



like those just imagined, all but a handful of his country- 
men would be transformed, not into heroes like him- 
self, but, at worst, into shrinking cowards or clawing 
beasts, at best into creatures whose hearts and hands 
would reach out instinctively for the most blood-thirsty 
revenge. And even if he could conceivably justify cast- 
ing his own vote toward disarmament, that would not 
justify his urging his weaker fellow-citizens to vote 
as he does. Not till he has imparted to them the secret 
of acting as he can! 

NON-RESISTANCE AND MILITARISM EXTREMES THAT MEET 

The pacifist who counts on the fact of disarmament 
does not perceive that he has gone clear around the 
circle and clasped hands with the militarist who counts 
on the fact of armament. But it is so. The militarist 
puts his faith in guns and powder. The pacifist puts his 
faith in their absence. They are equally deluded. To 
rely on the absence of armed force is just as material- 
istic as to rely on its presence. The things to rely on 
are national good-will, national imagination, national 
self-control. The things to fear are national greed, na- 
tional ignorance, and national passion. 

Why ! it is intellectually paralyzing to hear extremists 
of either party talk on this subject. "An army is in- 
surance against war." "An army is a standing provoc-. 
ative of war." "A navy is a species of police force." 
"A navy is a powder magazine awaiting ignition from 
the first chance spark." "Europe exploded because it 
was all so overarmed." "Europe exploded because the 
rest of Europe was not so well armed as Germany." 
"The lesson of the war is that preparedness will not keep 
the peace." "The lesson of the war is that the unpre- 

15 



pared nation will be crushed." Such talk is nonsense. 
As if ships sailed and guns went off of themselves! 
Armaments, like pistols and the police, are dangers or 
protections only in reference to the powers behind them, 
and the same navy might be insurance to one people and 
a constant menace to another. 

To a hair-trigger nation or to a boldly avaricious na- 
tion a high degree of preparedness is manifestly a peril. 
To a self-controlled nation of high humanitarian ideals 
surrounded by powerful nations of lower standards, 
reasonable preparedness is plainly a wise precaution. 
Only when such a nation attains a clear ascendency in 
super-force (to what that consists in I will come in a 
minute) is complete unpreparedness a possibility. The 
problem, in other words, instead of being the absurdly 
simple one that the average pacifist or militarist would 
make it, is staggeringly intricate, involving, as it does, 
not only an attempted calculation of the super-force of 
the nation but of the degree of susceptibility of the other 
nations to that type of resistance — for among nations, 
as among individuals, types of arrested development or 
of insanity may appear that not the most miraculous 
super-force can control. 

NATIONAL SUPER-FORCE AND ITS MOBILIZATION 

But in what does national super-force consist? 

The power of super-resistance of a nation cannot be 
defined any more than can that of the individual. We 
might say it is the sum of the separate powers of super- 
resistance of its inhabitants 'in so far as those powers 
are nationally vocal and effective. We might say it is 
measured by the degree of dedication of its government 
to the growth and welfare of every human being within. 

i6 



its borders and thus of its dedication to the growth and 
welfare of humanity as a whole. We might call it sim- 
ply a nation's international good-will. Such generalities 
would mean little. But that does not alter the fact that 
national super-resistance is a reality as actual as is the 
personal magnetism of a strong and sympathetic indi- 
vidual. Furthermore, it is only the presence of this force 
in its fullness that can take the place of arms. It is only 
the presence, of this force in some measure that can 
render arms safe to the nation that bears them. 

Does anyone need to be told, for instance, that if the 
United States really were the democracy, the refuge 
for the oppressed, the land of equal opportunity, which 
in popular cant it is supposed to be, and which in actual 
fact it feebly tries to be — does anyone need to be told 
that such a United States could stand in absolute safety 
among the nations of the world, utterly unarmed ? Does 
anyone need to be told, either, that such a United States 
could be armed to the teeth quite without danger to her- 
self or to her neighbors? 

Does anyone suppose that if Belgium had been a little 
Utopia, a model society for the world, Germany would 
have dared to trample her into the mire? Not for a 
moment. Not if Germany were twice the brute that her 
bitterest enemies would make her out. 

Remote as these extreme cases may be from present 
reality, they point out the only real road to peace. Na- 
tional super-force, like personal super-force, works 
through the method of the compelling imaginative sub- 
stitute. Nations are like children, especially when they 
are on the edge of war. (Persons who put supreme faith 
in arbitration should try reasoning with a child in a 
fit of the tantrums.) And a nation in an ugly mood 
must be overruled by a power to which, willingly or 

17 



unwillingly, consciously or unconsciously, it looks up. 
It must be managed by distracting its attention to some- 
thing more interesting than war. The only power ade- 
quate to the super-resistance of the Prussian war-game 
is the Utopian state-game. 

Now if any man is fatuous enough to suppose that the 
United States can rely for its safety on its present prog- 
ress toward Utopia, he would do well to expose himself 
for a time to prevalent European opinion of our mate- 
rialism and greed. False and exaggerated as most of 
that opinion is, it would act as a salutary corrective of 
his moral complacency. To awaken from complacency, 
indeed, is the first step the United States must take if it 
desires peace for itself and to help bring peace to the 
world. That step taken, it must cease squandering its 
inheritance and set about the task of mobilizing its disin- 
tegrated forces of super-resistance — social, industrial, 
political, educational and religious. It must wipe out the 
stigma of dollar-worship by fashioning a creative national 
purpose. It must focus on itself the admiration of the 
world by making an America where men are free in fact 
as well as in name. The program for that work must be 
bold and imaginative. No half -measures will suffice at 
this crisis of world history. And the working-relation 
that the political part of that program should bear to the 
question of military preparedness is this : No increase 
in armament that is not coupled with some social ame- 
lioration, some enhancement of genuine democracy, is 
entitled to a moment's consideration from the American 
people. That is the crux of the whole matter. Only as 
a nation's power of super-resistance is increased can that 
nation with impunity increase the size of the stick that 
it carries. 

It is not enough to say : we will strengthen the nation's 

i8 



right arm first; and afterzvard we will teach the nation 

itself not to abuse its strength., The second step rather 
should be the indispensable condition of the first — for 
on it depends the tremendous question whether the na- 
tion shall dominate or be dominated by the instruments 
of war. We may well take a lesson here from the recent 
attitude of English labor. English labor demanded as a 
condition of its participation in the European war, a 
fuller recognition of its place and power. English labor 
was precisely and profoundly right in that demand. 
(Indeed, the rational sympathy for the Allies in this 
country is grounded on the belief that such things can 
happen more readily in England and France than in 
Germany.) Every worker in America, be his work man- 
ual, mental, or imaginative, should place himself on a 
similar platform with regard to the military future of 
this country. And there are, at the outset, two very 
concrete openings for such demands — openings that 
fortunately can be made a test and touchstone of the 
character of every representative of the people now in 
public life. In the first place, hand in hand with new 
armaments must go the taxation that is to pay for them. 
If it is decided that new armaments are necessary to 
ward off dangers from without, let it be demanded at 
the very least that the new taxation make for greater 
equality and justice within. And a second condition of 
added armament should be the abolition, or the begin- 
ning of the abolition, of private profit in the manufac- 
ture of the instruments of war. To win immunity from 
foreign attack at the price of subjugation to Kruppism 
would be for the American people a humiliation far pro- 
founder than the most crushing defeat at the hands of 
Germany or Japan that the nightmares of the most panic- 
stricken militarist ever conjured up. 

19 



Ill 

THE PACIFIC PARADOX 

And SO the end gf the whole matter is a paradox : the 
paradox that he who would seek peace must seek some- 
thing else first. For peace — like those other ultimate 
things, beauty and happiness — must be wooed indirectly. 
It is written that he only shall attain beauty who loves 
life more than he loves art. It is written that he only 
shall obtain happiness who loves labor more than he loves 
pleasure. It is written that that nation only shall gain 
peace that loves humanity more than it loves the absence 
of strife and bloodshed. 



20 



;<!./ 



International Conciliation 

Published monthly by the 
American Association for International Conciliation. 
Entered as second-ciass matter at New York, N. Y., 
Postoffice, February 23, 1909, under act of July 16, 1894 



OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS REGARDING THE 
EUROPEAN WAR. SERIES No. XIII. 



Memorandum of the Imperial German Government on the 
Treatment of Armed Merchantmen 




JUNE. 1916 
No. 103 



ft/ 



American Association for International Conciliation 

Sub-Station 84 (407 West 1 17th Street) 

New York City 



It is the aim of the Association for International Con- 
ciliation to awaken interest and to seek co-operation 
in the movement to promote international good wilL 
This movement depends for its ultimate success upon 
increased international understanding, appreciation, 
and sympathy. To this end, documents are printed 
and widely circulated, giving information as to the 
progress of the movement and as to matters connected 
therewith, in order that individual citizens, the news- 
paper press, and organizations of various kinds may 
have accurate information on these subjects readily 
available. 

It is the aim of the Association to avoid, as far as 
possible, contentious questions, and in particular 
questions relating to the domestic poUcy of any given 
nation. Attention is to be fixed rather upon those 
underlying principles of international law, international 
conduct, and international organization, which must 
be agreed upon and enforced by all nations if peaceful 
civilization is to continue and to be advanced. A list 
of pubUcations will be found on pages 28 to 30. 



MEMORANDUM OF THE IMPERIAL GERMAN GOVERN- 
MENT ON THE TREATMENT OF ARMED 
MERCHANTMEN 

[Translation.] 



I. Even before the outbreak of the present war the British 
Government had given English shipping companies the opportunity 
to arm their merchant vessels with guns. On March 26, 19 13, 
Winston Churchill, then First Lord of the Admiralty, made the dec- 
laration in the British Parliament (Exhibit i) that the Admiralty 
had called upon the shipowners to arm a number of first-class liners 
for protection against danger threatening in certain cases by fast 
auxiliary cruisers of other powers; the liners were not, however, to 
assume the character of auxiliary cruisers themselves. The Gov- 
ernment desired to place at the disposal of the shipowners the 
necessary guns, suflBcient ammunition, and suitable personnel for 
the training of the gun crews. 

" 2. The English shipowners readily responded to the call of 
the Admiralty. Thus Sir Owen Philipps, president of the Royal 
Mail Steam Packet Company, was able to inform the stockholders 
of his company in May, 1913, that the large steamers of the com- 
pany were equipped with guns; furthermore, the British Admiralty 
published in January, 1914, a list, according to which 29 steamers 
of various British lines carried guns aft. 

3. As a matter of fact, German cruisers ascertained soon after 
the outbreak of the war that British liners were armed. For ex- 
ample, the steamer La Correntina, of the Houlder Line, of Liverpool, 
which was captured by the German auxiliary cruiser Kronprinz 
Friedrich Wilhelm on October 7, 1914, had two 4.7-inch guns aft. 
On February i, 1915, a German submarine was shelled in the Chan- 
nel by an English yacht. ' 

II 

\. With regard to the legal character of armed merchantmen 
in international law, the British Government took the position in 
respect of its own merchantmen that such vessels retain the char- 
acter of peaceable merchant vessels as long as they carry the arms 
for defensive ptirposes only. In accordance with this, the British 
Ambassador at Washington, in a note dated August 25, 1914 
(Exhibit 2), gave the American Government the fullest assurances 
that British merchant vessels were never armed for purposes of 
attack, but solely for defense, and that they consequently never fire 
unless first fired upon. On the other hand, the British Government 
set up the principle for armed vessels of other flags that they are 
to be treated as war vessels. Number i of Order I of the Prize Court 
Rules, promulgated by the Order in Council of August 5, 1914, 
expressly provides "ship of war shall include armed ship.'.' 



2. The German Government has no doubt that a merchantman 
assumes a warlike character by armament with guns, regardless of 
whether the guns are intended to serve only for defense or also for at- 
tack. It considers any warlike activity of an enemy merchantman con- 
trary to international law, although it accords consideration to the op- 
posite view by treating the crew of such a vessel not as pirates but as 
belligerents. The details of its position are set forth in the memo- 
randum on the treatment of armed merchantmen in neutral ports 
(Exiiibit 3) communicated to the American Government in October, 
19 1 4, the contents of which were likewise communicated to other 
neutral powers. 

3. Some of the neutral powers have accepted the position of 
the British Government and therefore permitted armed merchant- 
men of the belligerent powers to stay in their ports and on their road- 
steads without the restrictions which they had imposed on ships of war 
through their neutrality regulations. Some, however, have taken 
the contrary view and subjected armed merchantmen of belligerents 
to the neutrality rules applicable to ships of war. 



Ill 

1. During the course of the war the armament of British mer- 
chantmen has been more and more generally carried out. From 
reports of the German naval forces numerous cases became known 
in which British merchantmen not only offered armed resistance 
to the German war vessels, but proceeded to attack them on their 
own initiative, and in so doing they frequently even made use of 
false flags. A list of such cases is found in Exhibit 4, which, from 
the nature of the matter can include only a part of the attacks 
which were actually made. It is also shown by this list that the 
practice described is not limited to British merchantmen, but is 
imitated by the merchantmen of England's allies. 

2. The explanation of the action of the armed British mer- 
chantmen described is contained in Exhibits 5 to 12, which are 
photographic reproductions of secret instructions of the British 
Admiralty found by German naval forces on captured ships. These 
instructions regulate in detail artillery attack by British merchant- 
men on German submarines. They contain exact regulations touch- 
ing the reception, treatment, activity, and control of the British 
gun crews taken on board merchantmen; for example, the crew 
are not to wear uniform in neutral ports and thus plainly belong to 
the British navy. Above all, it is shown by the instructions that 
these armed vessels are not to await any action of maritime war on 
the part of the German submarines, but are to attack them forth- 
with. In this respect the following regulations are particularly 
instructive: 

a. The " Instructions for Guidance in the Use, Care, and Main- 
tenance of Armament in Defensively Armed Merchant Ships" (Ex- 
hibits 5 and 6) provide in the section headed "Action," in Number 



4: "It is not advisable to open fire at a range greater than 800 
yards, unless the enemy has already opened fire." From this it is 
the duty of the merchantman in principle to open fire without regard 
to the attitude of the submarine. 

b. The "Instructions Regarding Submarines Applicable to 
Vessels Carrying a Defensive Armament" (Exhibits 9 and 10) pre- 
scribe under Number 3: "If a submarine is obviously pursuing a ship, 
by day, and it is evident to the Master that she has hostile inten- 
tions, the ship pursued should open fire in self-defense, notwith- 
standing the submarine may not have committed a definite hostile 
act, such as firing a gun or torpedo." From this also the mere ap- 
pearance of a submarine in the wake of a merchantman affords 
sufficient occasion for an armed attack. 

In all these orders, which do not apply merely to the zone of 
maritime war around England, but are unrestricted in their applic- 
ability (see Exhibit 12 for the Mediterranean), the greatest empha- 
sis is laid on secrecy, plainly in order that the action of merchant- 
men, which is in absolute contradiction of international law and of the 
British assurances (Exhibit 2), might remain concealed from the 
enemy as well as the neutrals. 

3. It is thus made plain that the armed British merchantmen 
have official orders to attack the German submarines treacher- 
ously wherever they come near them; that is to say orders to con- 
duct relentless warfare against them. Since England's rules of 
maritime war are adopted by her allies without question, the proof 
must be taken as valid in request of the armed merchantmen of 
the other enemy countries also. 

IV 

1. In the circumstances set forth above enemy merchantmen 
armed with guns no longer have any right to be considered as 
peaceable nlerchantmen. Therefore the German naval forces will 
receive orders within a short period, paying consideration to the 
interests of the neutrals, to treat such vessels as belligerents. 

2. The German Government brings this status of affairs to the 
knowledge of the neutral powers in order that they may warn their 
nationals against continviing to entrust their persons or property to 
armed merchantmen of the powers at war with the German Empire. 

Berlin, February 8, 19 16. 



EXHIBIT 1 

DECLARATION OF • THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY, WINSTON 
CHURCHILL, IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS MARCH 26, I913. 

(Parliamentary Debates, Official Report, 3d Session of the 30th 
Parliament, House of Commons, 1913, vol. i,pp. 1776 and 1777.) 

I turn to one aspect of trade protection which requires special 
reference. It was made clear at the second Hague Conference and 
the London Conference, that certain of the great powers have 
reserved to themselves the right to convert merchant steamers into 
cruisers, not merely in national harbors, but if necessary on the 
high seas. There is now good reason to believe that a considerable 
number of foreign merchant steamers may be rapidly converted into 
armed ships by the mounting of guns. The sea-borne trade of the 
world follows well-marked routes, upon nearly all of which the ton- 
nage of the British mercantile marine largely predominates. Our 
food-carrying liners and vessels carrying raw material following 
these trade routes would in certain contingencies meet foreign vessels 
armed and equipped in the manner described. If the British ships 
had no armament, they would be at the mercy of any foreign liner 
carrying one effective gun and a few rounds of ammunition. It 
would be obviously absurd to meet the contingency of considerable 
numbers of foreign armed merchant cruisers on the high seas by 
building an equal number of cruisers. That would expose this 
country to an expenditure of money to meet a particular danger, 
altogether disproportionate to the expense caused to any foreign 
power in creating that danger. Hostile cruisers, wherever they are 
found, will be covered and met by British ships of war, but the 
proper reply to an armed merchantman is another merchantman 
armed in her own defense. 

This is the position to which the Admiralty hdve felt it 
necessary to draw the attention of leading shipowners. ' We have 
felt justified irf pointing out to them the danger to life and property 
■which would be incurred if their vessels were totally incapable of 
offering any defense to an attack. The shipowners have responded to 
the Admiralty invitation with cordiality, and substantial progress has 
been made in the direction of meeting it by preparing as a defensive 
measure to equip a number of first-class British liners to repel the 
attack of armed foreign merchant cruisers. Although these vessels 
have, of- course, a wholly different status from that of the regularly 
commissioned merchant cruisers, such as those we obtain under the 
Cunard agreement, the Admiralty have felt that the greater part 
of the cost of the necessary equipment should not fall upon the 
owners, and we have decided, therefore, to lend the necessary guns, 
to supply ammunition, and to provide for the training of members 
of the ship's company to form the guns crews. The owners on their 
part are paying the cost of the necessary structural conversion, 
which is not great. The British mercantile marine will, of course, 



have the protection of the Royal Navy under all possible circum- 
stances, but it is obviously impossible to guarantee individual vessels 
from attack when they are scattered on their voyages all over the 
world. No one can pretend to view these measures without regret, 
or without hoping that the period of retrogression all over the world 
which has rendered them necessary may be succeeded by days of 
broader international confidence and agreement than those through 
which we are now passing. 



./ 



EXHIBIT 2 



ABSTRACT FROM THE OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE STATE DEPART- 
MENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



"European War No. 2, Diplomatic Correspondence with Belligerent 
Governments Relating to Neutral Rights and Duties." Page 
41. 



The British Ambassador to the Secretary of State 

No, 289.} British Embassy, 

\ Washington, August 25, 19 14. 



Sir: With reference to Mr. Barclay's notes Nos. 252 and 259 
of the 4th and 9th of August, respectively, fully explaining the posi- 
tion taken up by His Majesty's Government in regard to the ques- 
tion of armed merchantmen, I have the honour, in view of the fact 
that a number of British armed merchantmen will now be visiting 
United States ports, to reiterate that the arming of British mer- 
chantmen is solely a precautionary measure adopted for the purpose 
of defence against attack from hostile craft. 

I have at the same time been instructed by His Majesty's Prin- 
cipal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to give the United States 
Government the fullest assurances that British merchant vessels will 
never be used for purposes of attack, that they are merely peaceful 
traders armed only for defence, that they will never fire unless first 
fired upon, and that they will never under any circumstances attack 
3.ny vessel. 

I have, etc., 

CECIL SPRING-RICE. 



i 



EXHIBIT 3 

PROMEMORIA OF THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT ON THE TREATMENT 
OF ARMED MERCHANTMEN IN NEUTRAL PORTS OF OCTOBER I3, 
I914. 

According to an official announcement of the Westminster 
Gazette of September 21, 1914, the State Department in Wash- 
ington has decreed that ships of a belHgerent Power, provided with 
armament and ammunition are nevertheless in American ports 
to be treated as merchantmen in so far as the armament is to serve 
exclusively for purposes of defence. This decree does not take 
the principles of neutrality sufficiently into consideration. 

The purpose of the artilleristic armament of the British mer- 
chantmen is armed resistance against the German cruisers. Such 
a resistance is contrary to international law, because a merchant- 
man is not permitted military defence against a man-of-war; such 
action would entitle the man-of-war to sink the merchantman with 
her crew and passengers. It is open to doubt whether ships armed 
in this manner may be received at all in the ports of a neutral 
State. At any rate, such ships cannot enjoy in neutral ports any 
better treatment than genuine men-of-war intended for the legiti- 
mate prosecution of war; hence they would at least be subject to 
the rules which the neutral State has issued in restriction of the 
stay of the men-of-war of belligerent States. 

If the American Government believes it is fulfilling its duty of 
neutrality by confining admission of armed merchantmen to ships 
exclusively equipped for defence, it must be pointed out that in 
order to establish the warlike character of a ship the distinction 
between arms of attack and arms of defence is of no moment; 
what is decisive is rather the question whether the ship is intended 
for any warlike activity whatever. Moreover, limitations in the 
extent of the armament offer no guarantee that ships armed in that 
manner will not in a given case be used for purposes of attack. 



EXHIBIT 4 

[Translation.] 



LIST OF CASES IN WHICH ENEMY MERCHANT SHIPS HAVE FIRED 
ON GERMAN OR AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN SUBMARINES. 



Date. 



Place. 



Nationality and 
name of the ship. 



Details Concerning the 
Circumstances. 



IQIS- 
Apr. 1 1 



Apr. 28 



South North Sea, 
near the Nord- 
hinder lightship. 



North Sea, about 
60 nautical miles 
NE.of the mouth 
of the Tyne. 



May 29 



June 14 



West entrance to 
theEnglish Chan- 
nel, near Oues- 
sant (Ushant Is- 
land) . 



West entrance to 
the English chan- 
nel, SO sea miles 
south of the 
Scilly Isles. 

West of the Heb- 
rides (about 30 
sea miles off 
Lewis) . 



Unknown steamer. 



Unknown steamer 
of medium size . 



British S. S. Deme- 
rara. 



Unknown steamer. 



Two unknown 
steamers. 



Steamer without flag. 
Steamer saw periscope, 
opened gun-fire at about 
3,000 meters and turned 
toward U . . . Explosion 
of shells could be heard 
near the submarine (about 
15 to 20 shots). 

Steamer was sighted coming 
toward submarine, sud- 
denly opened fire at 
about 3,000 meters with- 
out hoisting flag. On ac- 
count of her head-on posi- 
tion it could not be seen 
whether she bore neutral 
marks. From the impact 
of the projectiles the guns 
were from 5 to 7 centi- 
meters. U . . . escaped 
the well-directed fire by 
speedily submerging. 

U . . . chased the steamer 
and tried when 4,500 me- 
ters off to stop her by 
warning shots. Steamer 
turned off and answered 
the fire. 

U . . . tried to stop steamer 
after warning shot by fire 
from her guns. Steamer 
returned the fire with a 
poop gun. 

The two steamers were run- 
ning close together. When 
at a distance of about 
4,000 meters both opened 
fire on U . . . with small 
calibre poop guns. Shots 
fell badly sideways. Sub- 
marine submerged, ran 
deep since submarine at- 
tack hopeless. 



10 



Date. 



Place. 



Nationality and 
name of the ship. 



Details Concerning the 
Circumstances. 



191S 
Aug. 14 



Irish Sea. 



Aug. 18 Bristol Channel. 



Sept. 10 



Oct. 7 



Nov. 



Nov. s 



West Mediterra- 
nean. 



Middle Mediterra- 
nean. 



Western Mediter- 
ranean. 



Western Mediter- 
ranean. 



Large British 
steamer of the 
RoyalMailLine. 



Unknown steamer 



. . . .do. 



French S. S. Ami- 
ral Hamelin. . 



British transport 
steamer Wood- 
field. 



Unknown steamer. 



U . . . was suddenly fired 
on by steamer without 
any provocation. Shots 
fell short. No attack 
had been attempted oa 
steamer. 



Tried after warning to stop 
steamer by gun-fire. When 
latter saw that U-boat 
waited, she suddenly fired 
from a gun on her prom- 
enade deck. 1 



Steamer was called upon to 
show her flag. She turned 
oflf without hoisting flag 
and opened fire from a 
poop gun of about 10 cen- 
timeters. The U-boat es- 
caped fire, speedily sub- 
merging. 

U . . . stopped steamer by 
signal. She turned and 
ran away in a zigzag 
course. The U-boat tried 
to stop her by gun-fire. 
Steamer at 3,000 meters' 
distance replied to fire. 

' Steamer stopiied only after 
some' time and was sunk 
later. 



Steamer did not stop after 
warning shot. At 6,000 
meters replied to fire with 
small calibre gun. Com- 
pelled to stop by gun-fire 
and sunk later. Her crew 
list showed that she had 
a gun captain and a gun 
crew from the navy among 
her crew. 



The large steamer was 
chased by U . . . after 
fruitless warning. She re- 
turned fire with a large 
calibre gun. Chase had 
to be abandoned. 



Date. 



Place. 



Nationality and 
name of the ship. 



Details Concerning the 
Circumstances. 



1915- 
Nov. 6 Eastern Mediter- 
ranean. 



Nov. 23 



Western Mediter- 
ranean. 



British tank 
steamerLum jna . 



British S.S. City 
of Marseilles. 



Nov. 30 



Dec. 8 



Dec. 13 



Dec. 14 



1916. 

Jan. 17 



Middle Mediter- 
ranean. 



Eastern Mediter- 
ranean. 



Middle Mediter- 
ranean. 



.do. 



Unknown steamer 



...do. 



Unknown British 
steamer. 



Unknown steamer 



.do. 



....do. 



Steamer was summoned to 
stop by warning shot. 
Turned off, ran away and 
returned fire with a poop 
gun. Was stopped by 
gun-fire and sunk later. 

U . . . tried after warning 
shot to stop large freight 
steamer by artillery fire. 
Steamer turned off and 
replied to fire with two 
guns of 10 centimeters' 
calibre. The U-boat had 
to abandon chase, because 
steamer escaped. A news- 
paper telegram from Bom- 
bay of January i, 1916, 
confirmed the incident in 
detail; steamer told she 
had sunk the U-boat. 



U . . . after warning shot 
tried to stop a large steam- 
er without flag by gun-fire. 
Steamer turned and re- 
plied to fire by a small 
calibre gun. 

Steamer was approached 
under water. She fired 
from a poop gun at the 
periscope as soon as it 
emerged. 

U . . . tried to stop a large 
steamer with poop guns, 
carrying no flag, by artil- 
lery-fire. Steamer 
hoisted British flag and 
replied to fire from two 
guns. 

U . . . approached steamer, 
which stopped when sight- 
ing U-boat, and ordered 
her to show her flag. 
Steamer ran away at top- 
speed, keeping up a brisk 
fire from a poop gun. 

U . . . ordered _ a steamer, 
apparently in ballast, 
sighted on a westerly 
course to stop. Steamer 
turned off, ran away and 
fired from a poop gun. 



Date. 



Place. 



Nationality and 
name of the ship. 



Details Concerning the 
Circumstances. 



1916. 
Jan. 1; 



Middle Mediter. 
ranean. 



British S. S. Me- 
lanie. 



U . . . signaled a flush- 
decked freight steamer of 
about 3,000 tons, saiUng 
under the Dutch flag, to 
send a boat in order that 
the ship's papers might be 
examined. This was done 
after a while. When U 
. . ., which had sub- 
merged for safety's sake 
emerged about 1,000 me- 
ters from the steamer 
near the ship's boat, the 
steamer opened a violent 
fire from two guns of 
medium calibre and from 
machine guns, U . . . 
barely succeeding to save 
herself by quickly sub- 
merging. Throughout the 
action the steamer flew 
the Dutch flag; she bore 
the name of Melanie, 
which is not found in the 
Dutch but in the British 
marine list. 



X3 



EXHIBIT 5 

Found on the English Steamer Woodfield 

Confidential. 

INSTRUCTIONS FOR GUIDANCE IN THE USE, CARE, AND MAINTENANCE 
OF ARMAMENT IN DEFENSIVELY ARMED MERCHANT SHIPS. 

General. 

1. Ratings embarked as gun's crew will sign the ship's articles 
at the rate of pay communicated. 

2. They are to obey the orders of the Master and Officers of the 
ship. If they think it necessary to make a complaint against any 
order they are to obey the order and make their complaint in writing, 
asking that it may be forwarded to the proper authorities. 

3. The ratings are not required for duties unconnected with the 
armament except in case of emergency, but they are to assist at all 
times in the welfare of the ship and look after the cleanliness of their 
berths. 

4. They are to keep watch and watch at sea, and also when 
the ship is anchored in any place liable to attack by submarines. 

5. They will receive their pay through the Master of the ship. 
They will not mess with the crew, but in one of the Officers' messes 
as the Master may decide. 

6. Uniform is not to be worn in neutral ports. 

7. A brief report is to be rendered by the senior rating on the 
1st of each month, countersigned by the Master, and sent to: — 

The Director of Trade Division, 
Admiralty, Whitehall, S. W. 

Drill and Maintenance of Gun. 

8. The ratings embarked are entirely responsible for the 
efficiency in all respects of the gun and ammunition, which should 
be ready day and night. 

9. The senior rating is to arrange with the Master to detail the 
necessary additional men to complete the gun's crew up to the 
numbers required by the drill book. 

10. One of the ratings is to act as gunlayer and the other as 
breech worker. The remaining numbers should be told off to act 
as sightsetter, projectile loader, and cartridge loader, etc. 

11. Arrangements are to be made with the master to detail a 
sufficient number of hands, over and above the gun's crew, to supply 
ammunition to the gun on going into action. 

14 



12. A ready supply of lo complete rounds, with percussion 
tubes^ in the cartridges, is to be kept at the gun day and night. 
Care should be taken that a supply of one percussion tube to each 
cartridge is kept aside for action, and this supply of tubes is never 
to be encroached on for practice firing. 

13. The senior rating should arrange with the Master for the 
instruction of the ratings told off as gun's crew and ammunition 
supply party. 

14 A drill book is supplied for information, but it is not neces- 
sary that the gun's crew should be burdened with details, provided 
that they understand what is required when the gun is to be fought. 

15. Percussion firing should always be used, as it is the most 
certain means of discharging the gun and therefore — 

(a) Cartridges, in ready supply only, should be kept ready 
tubed with percussion tubes. Tubes not required for ready supply 
of cartridges should be retained in their sealed boxes to preserve 
them from damp. 

(b) Aiming practice with a percussion lanyard should be carried 
out daily. It is not necessary to fire a tube in this practice but the 
breechworker should be exercised at the same time in cocking the 
striker while the breech is open, and in hooking on the firing lanyard 
and passing it to the gunlayer. 

Note. — The present allowance of percussion tubes is one per 
cartridge. Electric firing mechanism and batteries are therefore to 
be kept efficient in every respect in case the supply of percussion 
tubes becomes insufficient, from damp or other causes. 

16. Great attention is to be paid to the ready supply of ammu- 
nition, to keep it clean and dry. If tubes and cartridges are not 
kept dry there is,considerable danger of hanging fire. The projectiles 
are to be lightly oiled. In case the cartridges are suspected to have 
become wet, they should be laid aside until return to harbour. 

17. For the maintenance of the gun and mounting it is to be 
borne in mind that "lubrication is the secret of efficiency in gun 
machinery." All oil channels should be seen clear of vaseline and 
filled with oil. It is to be remembered that vaseline is a preservative 
only; oil is a lubricant. 

Each morning and evening the bore is to be seen clear, recoil 
cyHnders filled, striker protrusion gauged, and the gun trained and 
elevated to both extremes. 

The gun is to be cleaned twice a day, gear being supplied by 
the master. 

Brickdust is not to be used on machined surfaces. 

15 



Action. 

The master is responsible for handling the ship and for opening 
and ceasing fire. He has been furnished with instructions which 
will enable him to do this to the best advantage. The duty of the 
gun's crew is to fight the gun under the general direction of the 
master, who will communicate to them so much of the instructions 
as he may consider necessary to enable them to fight the gun to_the 
best advantage. 

In action the following instructions should be carried out: 
(i) When in submarine waters, everything should be in a state 
of readiness, but the gun should not be kept actually loaded. 

(2) When the enemy is engaged — 

(a) The point of aim should be the centre of the water line. 

(b) It is to be remembered that "over" shots are useless. A 
short shot by causing a splash confuses the enemy. It may ricochet 
into the enemy. If the shell bursts on striking the water — as it 
usually does — some fragments are Hkely to hit the enemy. To get 
the best result, at least half of the shots fired should fall short. 

(3) The master will probably keep the submarine astern so 
that little deflection wHl be necessary. 

(4) It is not advisable to open fire at a range greater than 800 
yards, unless the enemy has already opened fire, for the following 
reasons — 

(c) The ammunition supply is limited. 

(h) Accurate shooting under probable existing conditions cannot 
be expected at greater range. 

(5) When in action and a miss-fire occurs with a percussioa 
tube, the following procedure is to be adopted — 

(a) The B. M. lever is to be tapped to ensure it is closed. 

(b) The striker is to be recocked. 

If the gun does not then fire: The striker is to be taken out to 
ensure that the point is not broken. If unbroken the breech is to 
be opened and the cartridge is to be thrown overboard, it having 
been ascertained that the percussion tube has been inserted. 

The gun is then to be reloaded. 

INSTRUCTIONS FOR CARRYING OUT FIRING PRACTICE 

1. In order to ensure that the gun is maintained in an efficient 
condition, one round is to be fired every two months. 

2. In order to prevent false alarms it is essential that the 
firing referred to in paragraph i shall take place in clear weather 
and out of sight of land and of other ships. 

16 



3- If convenient a cask or other suitable object should be 
dropped as a target and the gun should be fired when the range is 
about 800 yards. 

4. The gun's crew and ammunition supply party should be 
exercised on the day previous to the practice, and also immediately 
before firing. 

5. Before practice firing the following procedure is to be carried 
out: 

(c) Recoil cylinders and tanks are to be seen filled. 

(b) Bote is to be seen clear. 

(c) IMoveable objects in the way of blast from the gun are to 
be removed. 

(d) The striker is to be examined to see — 

(i) That sheath net is screwed up and keep pin in place and 
intact. 

(2) That needle set and check-nuts are screwed up. 

(3) That striker does not protrude with B. M. lever in open 
position. 

(4) That striker does not move forward till marks on breech 
block and gun are in line. 

(5) That safety stop is correct and keep-screw is in place. 
Admiralty, 

May 7, 1915. 



17 



tc 




c 


TJ 


o 


!U 


be 


g 


i 


c3 


8 


^ 


o 


+3 


o 




■*J 


c . 


^ 


rt S 


s 


6 


rt 


l-H 


^o 


(D 




cx 


*& 


en 








Ul 


•4-> 


<u 


o 


> 


2; 





EXHIBIT 6 
Fotind on the English Steamer Woodfield 
Confidential. 

INSTRUCTIONS FOR GUIDANCE IN THE USE, CARE, AND MAINTENANCE 
OF ARMAMENT IN DEFENSIVELY ARMED MERCHANT SHIPS. 

General. 

1. Ratings embarked as gun's crew will sign the ship's articles 
at the rate of pay communicated. 

2. They are to obey the orders of the Master and Officers of 
the ship. If they think it necessary to make a complaint against 
any order, they are to obey the order and make their complaint in 
writing, asking that it may be forwarded to the proper authorities. 

3. The ratings are not required for duties unconnected with the 
armament except in case of emergency, but they are to assist at all 
times in the welfare of the ship and look after the cleanliness of 
their berths. 

4. They are to keep watch and watch at sea, and also when 
the ship is anchored in any place liable to attack by submarines. 

5. They will receive their pay through the Master of the ship. 
They will not mess with the crew, but as the Master may decide. 

6. Uniform is not to be worn in neutral ports. 

7. A brief report is to be rendered by the senior rating on the 
1st of each month, countersigned by the Master, and sent to: — 

The Director of Trade Division, 
Admiralty, Whitehall, S. W. 

Drill and Maintenance of Gun. 

8. The ratings embarked are entirely responsible for the effi- 
ciency in all respects of the gun and ammunition, wliich should be 
ready day and night. 

9. The senior rating is to arrange with the master to detail 
the necessary additional men to complete the gun's crew up to the 
numbers required by the drill book. 

10. One of the ratings is to act as gun layer and the other as 
breech worker. The remaining numbers should be told of! to act 
as sight setter, projectile loader, and cartridge loader, etc. 

11. Arrangements are to be made with the Master to detail a 
sufficient number of hands, over and above the gun's crew, to supply 
ammunition to the gun on going into action. 

12. A ready supply of 10 complete rounds, with percussion 
tubes in the cartridges, is to be kept at the gun day and night. 
Care should be taken that a supply of one percussion tube to each 
cartridge is kept aside for action, and this supply of tubes is never 
to be encroached on for practice firing. 

18 



13. The senior rating should arrange with the master for the 
Instruction of the ratings told off as gun's crew and ammunition 
supply party. 

14. A drill book is supplied for information, but it is not 
necessary that the gun's crew should be burdened with details, 
provided that they understand what is required when the gun is to 
be fought. 

15. Percussion firing should always be used, as it is the most 
certain means of discharging the gun; and therefore — 

(a) Cartridges, in ready supply only, should be kept ready tubed 
with percussion tubes. Tubes not required . for ready supply of 
cartridges should be retained in their sealed boxes to preserve them 
from damp. 

(b) Aiming practice with a percussion lanyard should be carried 
out daily. It is not necessary to fire a tube in this practice, but the 
breech worker should be exercised at the same time in cocking the 
striker while the breech is open and in hooking on the firing lanyard 
and passing it to the gun layer. 

Note. — The jiresent allowance of percussion tubes is one per 
cartridge. Electric firing mechanism and batteries are therefore to 
be kept efficient in every respect in case the supply of percussion 
tubes becomes insufficient from damp or other causes. 

16. Great attention is to be paid to the ready supply of ammuni- 
tion to keep it clean and dry. If tubes and cartridges are not kept 
dry there is considerable danger of hanging fire. The projectiles are 
to be lightly oiled. In case the cartridges are suspected to have 
become wet they should be laid aside until return to harbour. 

17. For the maintenance of the gun and mounting it is to be 
borne in mind that "lubrication is the secret of efficiency in gun 
machinery." All oil channels should be seen clear of vaseline and 
filled with oil. It is to be remembered that vaseline is a preserva- 
tive only'r oil is a lubricant. 

Each morning and evening the bore is to be seen clear, recoil 
cylinders filled, striker protrusion gauged, and the gun trained and 
elevated to both extremes. 

The gun is to be cleaned twice a day, gear being supplied by the 
master. 

Brickdust is noi to be used on machined surfaces. 

Action. 
The master is responsible for handling the ship and for opening 
and ceasing fire. He has been furnished with instructions which 
will enable him to do this to the best advantage. The duty of the 
gun's crew is to fight the gun under the general direction of the 
master, v/ho will communicate to them so much of the instructions 
as he may consider necessary to enable them to fight the gun to the 
best advantage. 

In action the following instructions should be carried out : 
(i) When in submarine waters everything should be in a state 
of readiness, but the gun should not be kept actually loaded. 

19 



(2) When the enemy is engaged — 

(a) The point of aim should be the centre of the water line. 

(b) It is to be remembered that "over" shots are useless. A 
short shot by causing a splash confuses the enemy. It may ricochet 
into the enemy. If the shell bursts on striking the water, as it 
usually does, some fragments are likely to hit the enemy. To get 
the best results at least half of the shots fired should fall short. 

(3) The master will probably keep the submarine astern, so 
that little deflection will be necessary. 

(4) It is not advisable to open fire at a range greater than 800 
yards, unless the enemy has already opened fire, for the following 
reasons: 

(a) The ammunition supply is limited. 

(b) Accurate shooting under probable existing conditions can 
not be expected at greater ranges. 

(5) When in action and a miss fire occurs with a percussion tube, 
the following procedure is to be adopted: 

(a) The B. M. lever is to be tapped to insure it is closed. 

(b) The striker is to be recocked. 

If the gun does not then fire, the striker is to be taken out to 
insure that the point is not broken. If unbroken, the breech is to 
be opened and the cartridge is to be thrown overboard, it having 
been ascertained that the percussion tube has been inserted. 

The gun is then to be reloaded. 

INSTRUCTIONS FOR CARRYING OUT FIRING PRACTICE 

1. In order to ensure that the gun is maintained in an efHcient 
condition, one round is to be fired every two months. 

2. In order to prevent false alarms it is essential that the 
firing referred to in paragraph i. shall take place in clear weather 
and out of sight of land and of other ships. 

3. If convenient a cask or other suitable object should be 
dropped as a target, and the gun should be fired when the range is 
about 800 yards. 

4. The gun's crew and ammunition supply party should be 
exercised on the day previous to the practice, and also immediately 
before firing. 

5. Before practice firing the following procedure is to be carried 
out: , 

(a) Recoil cylinders and tanks are to be seen fiUed. 

(b) Bore is to be seen clear. 

(c) Moveable objects in the way of blast from the gun are to be 
removed. 

(d) The striker is to be examined to see — 

(i) That sheath net is screwed up and keep pin in place and 
intact. 

(2) That needle set and check-nuts are' screwed up. 

(3) That striker does not protrude with B. M. lever in open 
position. 

20 



(4) That striker does not move forward till marks on breech 
block and gun are in line. 

(5) That safety stop is correct and keep-screw is in place. 

(6) In guns fitted with "A" breech mechanism, the mechanism 
is never to be taken apart. 

Paragraphs (i), (2), and (5) do not apply, but the following 
should be seen to: 

(«') The nut retaining striker must be seen screwed up and keep- 
screw in place. 

(ii) The needle retaining-nut should be seen screwed up taut. 

Admiralty, 
7 May, 1915. 



EXHIBIT 7 

Found on the English Steamer Woodfield 

Confidential. 

ADDENDA TO INSTRUCTIONS FOR GUIDANCE IN THE USE, CARE, AND 
MAINTENANCE OF ARMAMENT IN DEFENSIVELY ARMED MER- 
CHANT SHIPS. 

1. The Master should arrange wherever possible that the space 
in the immediate vicinity of the gun is railed off, and passengers and 
other unauthorized persons should not be allowed near the gun. 

2. A notice to this effect should be posted up near the gun. 

3. "^^Tien the ship is in harbour, one of the two Ratings is always 
to be on board to keep guard on the gun and ammunition, and the 
Master is to use his discretion as to keeping both Ratings on board, 
should he consider such a course to be desirable. 

4. The gun is to be kept covered at all times when not in use. 

5. Whenever the ships anchor in the vicinity of a man-of-war, 
a request should be made to the commanding officer of the man-of- 
war for an armovu-er to inspect the gun and mounting. 

Admiralty, 

27 May, 1915. 



21 



EXHIBIT 8 
Found on the English Steamer Woodfield 

DRILL BOOK 

FOR 

12-PR. Q. F. GUNS 

ISSUED TO 

DEFENSIVELY ARMED 
MERCHANT SHIPS 



ADMIRALTY. 

GUNNERY BRANCH. 

(G. 61ia/15. MAY. 1915) 



[TRANSLATION] 



NOTE: THE CONTENTS OF THIS WHITE BOOK 
4 ARE ONLY OF MILITARY INTEREST 

22 



EXHIBIT 9 

Found on the English Steamer Woodfield 

Confidential. No. 45. 

IN NO CIRCUMSTANCES IS THIS PAPER TO BE ALLOWED TO FALL 
INTO THE HANDS OF THE ENEMY 

This paper is for the master's personal information. It is not 
to be copied, and when not actually in use is to be kept in safety in a 
place where it can be destroyed at a moment's notice. 

Such portions as call for immediate action may be communi- 
cated verbally to the officers concerned. 
25th February, 1915. 

INSTRUCTIONS REGARDING SUBMARINES APPLICABLE TO VESSELS 
CARRYING A DEFENSIVE ARMAMENT 

1. Defensively armed vessels should follow generally the in- 
structions for ordinary merchant ships. 

2. In submarine waters gyns should be kept in instant readi- 
ness. 

3. If a submarine is obviously pursuing a ship, by day, and it 
is evident to the Master that she has hostile intentions, the ship 
pursued should open fire in self-defence, notwithstanding the sub- 
marines may not have committed a definite hostile act, such as firing 
a gun or torpedo. 

4. In view of the great difficulty in distinguishing a friend 
from an enemy at night, fire should not be opened after dark unless 
it is absolutely certain that the vessel fired at is hostile. 

5. Before opening fire, the British colours should be hoisted. 

It is essential that fire should not be opened under neutral 
colours. 



23 



EXHIBIT 10 

Found on the English Steamer "Woodfield 

Confidential. No. 29 1. 

IN NO CIRCUMSTANCES IS THIS PAPER TO BE ALLOWED TO FALL 
INTO THE HANDS OF THE ENEMY 

This paper is for the master's personal information. It is not 
to be copied, and when not actually in use is to be kept in safety in 
a place where it can be destroyed at a moment's notice. 

Such portions as call for immediate action may be communi- 
cated verbally to the officers concerned. 

April, 1915. 

INSTRUCTIONS REGARDING SUBMARINES APPLICABLE TO VESSELS 
CARRYING A DEFENSIVE ARMAMENT 

1. Defensively armed vessels should follow generally the in- 
structions for ordinary merchant ships. 

2. In submarine waters guns should be kept in instant readi- 
ness. 

3. If a submarine is obviously pursuing a ship, by day, and it 
is evident to the Master that she has hostile intentions, the ship 
pursued should open fire in self-defense, notwithstanding the sub- 
marines may not have committed a definite hostile act, such as 
firing a gun or torpedo. 

4. In view of the great difficulty in distinguishing a friend from 
an enemy at night, fire should not be opened after dark unless it is 
absolutely certain that the vessel fired at is hostile. 

5. Before opening fire the British colours must be hoisted. 

It is essential that fire should not be opened itnder neutral 
colours. 

6. If a defensively armed vessel is pursued by a submarine 
the master has two alternatives: 

(a) To open fire at long range immediately it is certain that the 
submarine is really in pursuit. 

{b) To retain fire until the submarine has closed to a range, say 
800 yards, at which fire is likely to be effective. 

In view of the very great difficulty of distinguishing between 
friendly and hostile submarines at long range (one British submarine 
has already been fired at by a merchant vessel which erroneously 
supposed herself to be pursued by the submarine), it is strongly 
recommended that course (6) should be adopted by all defensively 
armed ships. 

7. A submarine's flag is no guide to her nationality, as German 
submarines frequently fly British colours. 

8. Vessels carrying a defensive armament and proceeding to 
neutral ports must not be painted in neutral colours or wear a 
neutral flag. 

9. It is recommended that in neutral ports, particularly those ' 
of Spain, the armament should be concealed as far as possible. A 
canvas cover is recommended for this purpose. 

24 



EXHIBIT 11 
FoTind on the English Steamer Woodfield 



Secret. 



i 



MEMORANDUM FOR ISSUE TO MASTERS OF TRANSPORTS 
CARRYING TROOPS 

Use of Rifle and -Machine Gun Fire by Troops on Board Transports 
against Enemy Submarines or Torpedo Craft. 

(i) In daylight a submarine will probably attack while sub- 
merged with only her periscope showing. 

At night, in moonlight, a submarine may attack while on the 
surface or with only her conning tower above water owing to the 
difficulty of seeing through the periscope at night. 

(2) In either case heavy rifle or machine-gun fire will make it 
more difficult for a submarine to make a successful shot with a 
torpedo. If submerged, no injury will be done to her, but a good 
volume of fire falling just short of the periscope will make splashes 
which will render it difficult for the observer to see clearly through 
the periscope. 

(3) Wlien a destroyer escort is accompanying a transport, troops 
should not open fire on a submarine, as it may prevent a destroyer 
from ramming her, nor should their weapons be loaded, in order to 
avoid the possibility of an escorting vessel being fired on by mistake, 
especially at night. 

(4) When no escort is provided, machine guns should be in 
readiness to open fire, and a strong party of riflemen should also be 
on duty. 

(5) INIilitary officers should be in command both of the machine 
guns and riflemen to control the fire. 

(6) A military officer of the watch should be in command of the 
troops on deck. He should not order fire to be opened on a hostile 
submarine or torpedo vessel without the previous assent of the mas- 
ter or his representative — the ship's officer of the watch. 

(7) The object of those controlling the fire should be to keep 
the centre of the pattern just short of the hostile vessel. 

(8) Ivlachine-gun tripods can be lashed to the rails or other deck 
fittings. If there is motion on the ship and machine guns are fitted 
with elevating or training gear, it is advisable to disconnect it and 
point the gun by hand. 

(9) Field guns with recoil mountings might possibly be secured 
on deck in such a manner as to permit of their being fired, but their 
arc of training would be very restricted, and it is unlikely that gun 
layers, without previous training afloat, could make satisfactory 
practice from a ship with motion on. Their use is not, therefore, 
recommended. 

25 



(lo) In men-of-war it has been the practice for very many years 
to station sentries with ball cartridge on deck opposite the boats in 
the event of fire, collision, or other serious emergency likely to lead 
to the boats being required. Their duties are to prevent anyone 
getting into the boats or attempting to lower the boats without 
orders from the captain or his representative. This practice should 
be followed in Transports. 

Admiralty, 

31st May, 1915. 



26 



J 



EXHIBIT 12 

Found on the English Steamer Linkmoor 

Admiral Superintendent's Office, 

Malta, June, 1915. 

INSTRUCTIONS TO BRITISH MERCHANT VESSELS PASSING THROUGH 
THE MEDITERRANEAN SEA 

It is now certain that there are enemies submarines at sea in the 
Mediterranean. 

In order to avoid attack you are to keep out of the track of 
shipping. 

You are to darken ship at night and are not to show navigation 
lights except, at discretion, to avoid coUision, and all lights are to 
be extinguished when necessity is passed. 

You are to carry out the procedure recommended by the Admir- 
alty in their printed instructions if a hostile submarine is sighted. 



27 



LIST OF PUBLICATIONS 

Nos. 1-83 (April, 1907, to December, 1914). Including papers by Baron d'Estournelles 
de Constant, George Trumbull Ladd, Elihu Root, Barrett Wendell, Charles E. Jefferson, 
Seth Low, William James, Andrew Carnegie, Pope Pius X, Heinrich Lammasch, Norman 
Angell, Charles W. Eliot, Sir Oliver Lodge, Lord Haldane and others. A list of titles and 
authors will be sent on application. 



83 . Official Documents Bearing upon the European War. Series I . 

I. The Austro- Hungarian Note to Servia. 
IL The Servian Reply. 

III. The British White Paper. 

IV. The German White Book. October, 1914. 

84. Additional Official Documents Bearing upon the European War. Series II. 

I. Speech of the Imperial Chancellor to Reichstag, August 4, 1914. 
II. Speech of the Prime Minister to House of Commons, August 6, 1914. 

III. The Russian Orange Book. 

IV. The Original Texts of the Austrian Note of July 23, 1914, and the Servian 

Reply of July 25, 1914. with annotations. November, 1914. 

85. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. IIL 

I. The Neutrality of Belgium and Luxemburg. 
II. Address of the President of the Council to the French Senate, August 4, 1914. 

III. Official Japanese Documents. 

IV. Address to the People by the Emperor of Germany. December, 1914. 

86. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. IV. 

I. Turkish Official Documents. November, 1914. 
II. Speech of the Imperial Chancellor to the Reichstag. December 2, 1914. 
III. The Belgian Gray Book. (July 24, August 29, 1914.) January, 1915. 

87. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. V. 

The French Yellow Book, Translated and Prepared for Parliament by the British 
Government. February, 1915. 

88. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. V. 

The French Yellow Book, Translated and Prepared for Parliament by the British 
Government. March, 191S. 

89. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. VI. 

The Austrian Red Book, Official Translation Prepared by the Austrian Govern* 
ment. April, 1915- 

90. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. VII. 

The Serbian Blue Book. May, 1915- 

28 



International Conciliation 

Published monthly by the 
American Association for International Conciliation. 
Entered as second class matter at New York, N. Y., 
Postoffice, February 23, 1909, underact ot July 16, 1894 



OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS REGARDING THE 
EUROPEAN WAR. SERIES No. XIV. 

Speech of Imperial German Chancellor Before the Reichstag, 
on April 5. 1916. 

Translation furnished through German Embassy 




JULY. 1916 
No. 104 



ij 



American Association for International Conciliation 

Sub-Station 84 (407 West 1 17th Street) 

New York City 



It is the aim of the Association for International Con- 
ciliation to awaken interest and to seek co-operation 
in the movement to promote international good will. 
This movement depends for its ultimate success upon 
increased international understanding, appreciation, 
and sympathy. To this end, documents aire printed 
and widely circulated, giving information as to the 
progress of the movement and as to matters connected 
therewith, in order that individual citizens, the news- 
paper press, and organizations of various kinds may 
have accurate information on these subjects readily 
available. 

It is the aim of the Association to avoid, as far as 
possible, contentious questions, and in particular 
questions relating to the domestic policy of any given 
nation. Attention is to be fixed rather upon those 
underlying principles of international law, international 
conduct, and international organization, which must 
be agreed upon and enforced by all nations if peaceful 
civilization is to continue and to be advanced. A list 
of pubHcations will be found on pages 19, 20 and 21. 



SPEECH OF IMPERIAL GERMAN CHAN- 
CELLOR BEFORE THE REICHSTAG 

ON APRIL 5, 1916 

When I addressed you a quarter of a year ago I drew 
a sober picture based on sober facts of our military situa- 
tion. Subsequent events have justified the confidence 
with which I spoke. The Dardanelles enterprise of the 
enemy has ended in failure. After the successful Serbian 
campaign in which the Bulgarian army, fighting at the 
side of Germany and of Austria-Hungary, won everlast- 
ing glory, Montenegro and Northern Albania are now in 
the hands of our allies. The British are still attempting 
to relieve the army shut in in Kut-el-Amara. The Rus- 
sians have succeeded, it is true, in occupying Erzerum 
with superior numbers, but strong Turkish forces are 
checking their further advance. The Russian offensive 
in East Galicia, as well as the constantly renewed attacks 
of the Italians against the Isonzo positions, have been 
beaten back by the Austrian troops. Along an extended 
front the Russians also have driven their columns with 
great force against our lines, but their assaults have 
broken down with tremendous losses before Hindenburg 
and his brave soldiers. 



Military Strength Greater 

Gentlemen, the governments of the enemy countries 
have told their people that our military strength was 
nearly spent, that we had no more troops and that the 
morale of our army was beginning to crumble. I think, 
gentlemen, that the battle of Verdun is telling another 
story. In carrying out the operations, which were superbly 
conceived and carefully prepared, our brave troops are 
winning one advantage after another from an enemy 
fighting with self-sacrificing bravery. Thus the military 
situation is very favorable at all fronts and meets all our 
expectations. 

Gentlemen, if it is meet for us to express them here at 
home, what greater thanks must we send out to our 
soldiers and their leaders at the front who are protecting 
their country with life and limb with as much elan and 
dauntlessness in the twentieth month as they showed on 
the first day of the war. 

Meeting the Blockade 

Gentlemen, our enemies believe that that which they 
cannot achieve by means of their arms they can attain 
by blockade and starvation. While in 1915 I could under- 
stand why our enemies would not relinquish this hope, I 
cannot conceive how, after the experiences of that year, 
cool heads can still cling to it. Our enemies forget that 



— thanks to the organizing powers of our entire popula- 
tion — Germany is equal to the difficult task of the dis- 
tribution of food supplies; they forget that the German 
nation is in possession of moral reserves great enough to 
enable it to reduce the standard of living which has risen 
considerably in the past years. I imagine that it is not 
unbearable if in the consumption of meat, for example, 
and in other items as well, we return temporarily to the 
standards of the seventies, and I think that our enemies 
recollect that the German generation of those days was 
strong enough to deal heavy blows. 

The months , through which we are passing now — I 
speak frankly — are hard. They bring restrictions to 
many a household, care to many a family. But this 
makes all the greater and more deeply grateful our 
admiration for the self-sacrifice, for the devotion to the 
fatherland with which the poor and the people of mod- 
erate means are meeting the difficulties, ready to take a 
heavy burden on their shoulders in this struggle for our 
existence. Such, gentlemen, are the reports which come 
from all over the country. They inform us at the same 
time that the work of those who have remained at home 
will bear fruit if heaven blesses our fields. The reports 
are unanimous that the winter crop is good and it is 
many years since the crop reports were so favorable at 
this time of the year, as is the case at present. The grain 
harvest of 19 15 was one of the poorest for many decades, 

5 



nevertheless the stock of bread grain will not only be 
sufficient, but will provide for a considejable reserv^e with 
which to begin the new harvest year. Germany's agri- 
cultural strength has been proved anew. We shall not 
run short of anything in the future, just as we have not 
in the past. 

Neutral Rights Ignored 
In the effort to blockade us and starve us out, to extend 
the war to the entire German nation, to our women and 
our children, Great Britain and her allies have ridden 
roughshod over all neutral rights of trade and intercourse 
with the Central European states. The American note of 
November 5, 191 5, which contains a true description of 
the British violations of international law has, as far as 
I know, not been answered by the British Government 
up to the present day. Like this, all the other protests of 
neutrals to our enemies have led to nothing but further 
violations of neutrality. England went so far as to for- 
bid even such humane acts on the part of American phil- 
anthropists as the sending of milk to German children! 
The last order in Council threatens trade to neutral ports 
with new unlawful aggravations of the blockade rules, 
against the previous violations of which the American 
Government has already protested. No fair-minded neu- 
tral, no matter whether he favors us or not, can contest 
our right on our part to take measures of defense against 
this war of starvation, which is contrary to international 

6 



law. No one can expect us to permit the arms of defense 
at our disposal to be wrested from us. We use them, 
and must use them. We respect the legitimate interests 
of neutrals in trade and commerce, but we expect that 
this respect be appreciated and that our right and our 
duty be recognized to use all means possible for retaliating 
against this policy of starvation which sets at defiance 
not only international law but the plainest duties of 
humanity. 

England's Hand in Portugal 

Gentlemen, since I spoke here last we have been forced 
to declare war on Portugal. You have heard of the long 
list of violations of neutrality of which Portugal has been 
guilty. The contemptuous act of robbery committed 
against our ships while salutes were fired was the climax. 
Portugal acted under England's influence. England has 
again exercised her loving protection of the small nations. 

ASQUITH AND PeACE 

Gentlemen, when on December gth I declared our 
readiness to discuss peace, I said that I could observe no 
such readiness on the part of the governments of the 
enemy countries. That I was right has been proved by 
all that has occurred in the meanwhile and all that we 
have heard from the lips of the leading statesmen of the 

7 



enemy countries. The speeches which were delivered in 
London, Paris, St. Petersburg and Rome are so unequivo- 
cal that I need not go into any further details. Only a 
word in regard to the British premier, ^Ir. Asquith. I 
will refrain from answering his personal invectives, be- 
cause even in war I consider personal vilification of an 
opponent as unworthy. But in regard to the subject- 
matter I will answer in brief. For Mr. Asquith the com- 
plete and final destruction of Prussia's military power is 
prerequisite for any peace negotiations. At the same 
time, Mr. Asquith fails to find German peace offers in 
my speech. Ever^'^ party was ready, so he said, to dis- 
cuss peace offers made by the other side. Let us suppose, 
gentlemicn, that I suggest to Mr. Asquith that he sit 
down with me at a table and examine the possibilities of 
peace arid Mr. Asquith begins with the definite and 
complete destruction of Prussia's power — the conversa- 
tion would be ended before it began. To such peace con- 
ditions only one answer remains and this answer is given 
by our sword. If our enemies wish to continue the 
bloodshed, the slaughter of human beings and the devas- 
tation of Europe, theirs is the guilt. We will stand our 
ground and our arm will deal ever stronger blows. At 
the outbreak of the war I recalled Moltke's words that 
we would have to defend what we had won in 1870 in 
another sanguinary conflict. For the preservation of Ger- 
many's unity and freedom the entire nation went to war 

8 ' 



to a man. And it is this united and free Germany that 
our enemies wish to destroy. Germany is again to be as 
impotent as she was in past centuries, is again to be 
exposed to her neighbors' lust for power — Europe's scape- 
goat, and even after the war the development of her 
economic faculties is to be chained down forever. That 
is what our enemies mean by the annihilation of Prussia's 
military power. They beat against a wall ! 

Safety Must Be Assured 

Gentlemen, as against this, what are our intentions? 
For us the meaning and goal of this war is a Germany so 
finnly knit, so strongly protected, that no one will ever 
again feel the temptation to annihilate us, that every one 
in the world shall recognize our right to the free exer- 
cise of our peaceful activities. Such a Germany is what 
we wish to attain, not the destruction of other nations. 
That aim means at the same time the salvation of the 
European continent, which is now shaken to its very 
foundation. 

Gentlemen, what can the coalition of our enemies offer 
Europe? Russia — the fate' of Poland and Finland. 
France — the pretension to that hegemony which once 
caused our misery. Great Britain — disruption, a state 
of everlasting friction which she pleases to call the bal- 
ance of power on the European continent and which was 

9 



i 
the final and innermost cause of the whole disaster which 

has befallen Europe and the whole world in this war. 
Had these three powers not joined forces against us, had 
they not attempted to turn the wheel of history back to 
times long past, the peace of Europe would gradually 
have been secured through the power of quiet develop- 
ment. To attain this end was the aim of the German 
policy before the war. We could obtain what we wanted 
through peaceful labor. Our enemies chose war I 

Now the peace of Europe must arise out of a flood of 
blood and tears, out of a million graves. 

The Future of Poland 

To defend otu"selves v/e went to battle. But what was, 
is no longer. History has advanced with iron tread; 
there can be no turning back. It was not the intention 
of Germany and Austria-Hungary to open up the Polish 
question, but the fate of battles has done that. Now this 
problem stands before us and awaits solution. Germany 
and Austria-Hungary must and will solve it. After such 
gigantic events as have taken place history knows no 
status quo ante. Belgium after the war will no longer be 
the Belgium of before. The Poland from which the Rus- 
sian tchinovnik fled, extorting bribes as he went, the 
Poland from which the Riissian cossack retreated, burn- 
ing and pillaging, that Poland is no more. Even mem- 

10 



bers of the Duma have frankly admitted that they cannot 
imagine the return of the tchinovnik to the place where 
meantime the German, Austrian and Pole have honestly 
labored for the unfortunate land. 

Mr. Asquith, in his conditions of peace, refers to the 
principle of nationality. In doing so, if he places him- 
self in the position of the unconquered and invincible 
opponent, can he possibly expect Germany of her free 
will to hand over again to the rule of reactionary Russia 
the peoples between the Baltic Sea and the Volhynian 
swamps, whether they be Poles, Lithuanians, Baits or 
Livonians, all these peoples which the Central Powers 
have liberated? No, gentlemen! Russia must not be 
allowed a second time to array her armies along the un- 
protected border of East and West Prussia, nor to turn 
once more the Vistula lands, with the aid of French 
money, into a gate through which to invade unprotected 
Germany. 

Belgium Must Be Neutral 

And again, gentlemen, can anybody believe that we 
shall abandon the territory which we have occupied in 
the West and on which the blood of our people has 
been flowing, without complete safeguard for our future? 
We shall procure real guarantees that Belgium is not to 
become an Anglo-French vassal-state, nor to be made a 
military and economic outpost against Germany. Here, 

II 



too, is no status quo ante. Here, too, fate takes no step 
backward. Here, too, Germany cannot allow the long- 
suppressed Flemish race again to be exposed to efforts to 
make Frenchmen of them; Germany will seaire for them 
a sound development which does justice to their rich 
gifts and which is based on their Dutch speech and 
characteristics. We do not want neighbors who will 
again combine against us to throttle us. We want 
neighbors who will co-operate with us and with whom 
Mve can co-operate for mutual benefit. 

Can it be said that we were Belgiimi's enemies before 
the war? Has not rather peaceful German labor and 
peaceful German industry in Antwerp conspicuously co- 
operated in the welfare of the country? Are we not even 
during the war endeavoring -to resuscitate national life in 
Belgium as far as conditions permit? The sadly afflicted 
country will stir with the memory of this war for a long 
time to come. But we cannot, in the interest of both 
■countries, permit the possibility of new wars arising 
therefrom. 

Gentlemen, at this point I should like to touch on 
another question. Since the beginning of the war, the 
Russian Government has done its utmost to rob and 
expel Germans of Russian as well as German nationality. 
We have the right and duty to demand that the Russian 
Government shall redress the wrong committed in de- 
fiance of all laws of humanity, and let down the bars of 

12 



that Russian servitude that now hold our exiled and 
tortured countrymen in thrall. 

Peace Must Be Lasting 

The new Europe which will arise from this most gigan- 
tic of all crises will ih many_ respects differ from the old 
one. The blood which has been shed can never return, 
and the spent fortune only slowly. But whatever that 
new Europe may be, it must become a Europe of peaceful 
labor for all the nations that inhabit it. The peace which 
will end this war must be a lasting one and must not 
contain the seeds of new wars, but rather of a new, final 
and peaceful order of European things. 

In that long brotherhood of arms we have coalesced, 
ever more firmly, with our allies. Our faithful war com- 
radeship must and will be followed by a community of 
peaceful labor in the service of the economic and cultural 
welfare of the ever more closely knitted Central Empires. 
In that respect, too, we pursue a road different from that 
of our opponents. I have already touched upon that 
point. England does not want to stop the war even after 
the conclusion of peace, but wants to wage economic 
warfare against us with redoubled severity. JPirst of all 
our military and then our economic strength is to be 
crushed. Everywhere we observe a brutal rage of de- 
struction and annihilation, and the foolhardy purpose to 

13 



cripple a nation of seventy million people. That threat, 
too, will prove a bubble. But let the statesmen who 
utter such words remember that the more violent their 
language is, the fiercer our blows will be. 

Conflict in Afri(?a 

Gentlemen, let us now look beyond Europe. Severed 
from every connection with the homeland, our troops and 
countrymen have doggedly defended our colonies and are 
even now heroically disputing every inch of East African 
soil against the enemy. But, as Bismarck said, the final 
destiny of the colonies is not to be decided there, but 
here on the European continent. Through our victories 
on this continent we shall again secure colonial possessions 
and open up new and fiiiitftil fields for the indestructible 
spirit of Gerrrian enterprises. 

With frank and open mind we face the future with 
ever greater confidence. We are not self-deluded or arro- 
gant, but full of gratitude to our soldiers and full of sacred 
faith in ourselves and in our future. 

Faces Future Fearlessly 

A mighty mass of deceit, self-delusion and grim hatred 
oppresses the minds of our enemies. That the spell cast 
upon the people may not be broken, the hostile statesmen 

14 



again and again put their heads together to invent new- 
magic phrases to add to the old ones. We have no time 
for rhetoric. The facts which we let speak for themselves 
are stronger, and one of those facts is the difference which 
distinguishes our aims in this war from those of our oppo- 
nents. Germany is the only warring power which is 
threatened by her enemies, through the mouths of their 
statesmen, with annihilation, dismemberment of her realm, 
and destruction of both her military and economic 
strength. Lust of conquest, lust of revenge, and jealousy, 
the motive powers which prompted the coalition against 
us before the war, have remained dominant with the vari- 
ous governments during the war despite all their defeats. 
I.-ondon, Paris and Petersburg are agreed on that general 
war aim. We confront this fact with the other, that 
when the catastrophe befell Europe — in distinction from 
1870 when every German regarded Alsace-Lorraine and 
the Empire as the indispensable price of victory — our sole 
object was to defend ourselves and maintain our position, 
to keep the enemy out of our homeland and to drive hjm 
as quickly as possible from where he had so monstrously 
shown his rage of destruction. We had not, wished the 
war, we needed no change of frontiers, when war was 
started against our will. It was not we who threatened 
to crush another people out of existence and destroy its 
national entity.. 



Fortitude Proves Charges Lies 

And whence are we getting the strength to endure at 
home all the difficulties connected with the blockade of 
our oversea traffic, and at the front to overcome our 
superior enemies, to continue the battle and add to our 
victories? Can anybody seriously believe that it is lust 
of land that animates our storming columns before Ver- 
dun to new deeds of heroism again and again? Or is it 
possible that a people that has bestowed so many intel- 
lectual gifts on the world and has been the most peace- 
loving of all nations for forty-four years should have 
turned Hun and barbarian over night? No, gentlemen, 
such are the inventions of the evil conscience of those who 
are guilty of the war and who fear for their power at home. 

Gentlemen, the latest fruit of that endeavor to vilify 
us is the statement that after our victory we would make 
a rush for the American Continent and would try to con- 
quer Canada as our first province. That is as fantastic 
as the allegation of our desiring Brazilian or other South 
American territory. Unconcernedly let us lay these fool- 
ish and malicious imputations aside with the rest. 

Fight for Germany Only , 

This is a fight for our existence and future. Each of us 
knows it, and that is why our hearts and nerves are strong. 

i6 



Germany's sons do not bleed and die for a piece of foreign 
earth, but for Germany. 

Gentlemen, let me conclude with a personal reminis- 
cence. The last time that I was at Headquarters I was 
stariding with the Emperor on the spot where I had 
accompanied His Majesty exactly a year before. The 
Kaiser remembered the circumstance and referred with 
deep emotion to the great change through which we had 
lived in the present year. Then the Russian army was 
still as far advanced as the Carpathian ridges. The 
breach' near Gorlice and the great Hindenburg offensive 
had not yet taken place. To-day we are deep in Russia. 
Then the English and French were assailing Gallipoli and 
hoped to fan the Balkans into a blaze against us. To-day 
Bulgaria firmly stands by our side. Then we were fight- 
ing the hard, defensive battle in Champagne. This time, 
as the Kaiser spoke, the thunder of the guns at Verdun 
sounded in our ears. Profound gratitude to God, the 
army and the nation, filled the Emperor's heart and I 
may say that in that hour the gigantic achievements per- 
formed by the army and navy for us in this year came 
before my soul with a greater force and intensity than 
ever before. 

The Spirit of Germany 

Gentlemen, your and our common labor bears a double 
responsibility in grave times. No other thought can ani- 

17 



mate us but the one: How can we best assist and support 
our soldiers who risk their lives at the front for the home- 
land? One mind and one will is leading them. May this 
spirit which unites us all also lead us. It is the spirit 
which, through the warfare of their fathers, will lead our 
children and grandchildren into a strong and free future. 



i8 



LIST OF PUBLICATIONS 

Nos. 1-85 (April, 1907, to December, 1914). Including papers by Baron d'Estournelles 
de Constant, George Trumbull Ladd, Elihu Root, Barrett Wendell, Charles E. Jefferson, 
Seth Low, William James, Andrew Carnegie, Pope Pius X, Hinrich Lammasch, Norman 
Angell, Charles W. Eliot, Sir Oliver Lodge, Lord Haldane and others. A list of titles and 
authors will be sent on application. 

S3. Official Documents Bearing upon the European War. Series I. 
I. The Austro-Hungarian Note to Servia. 
II. The Servian Reply. 

III. The British White Paper. 

IV. The German White Book. October, 1914. 

84. Additional Official Documents Bearing upon the European War. Series II. 
I. Speech of the Imperial Chancellor to Reichstag, August 4, 1914. 
II. Speech of the Prime Minister to House of Commons, August 6, 1914. 

III. The Russian Orange Book. 

IV. The Original Texts of the Austrian Note of July 23, 1914, and the Servian 

Reply of July 25, 1914, with annotations. November, 1914. 

83. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. III. 
I. The Neutrality of Belgium and Luxemburg. 
II. Address of the President of the Council of the French Senate, August 4, 1914.. 

III. Official Japanese Document. 

IV. Address to the People by the Emperor of Germany. December, 1914. 

86. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. IV. 

I. Turkish Official Documents. November, 1914. 
II. Speech of the Imperial Chancellor to the Reichstag. December 2, 1914. 
III. The Belgian Gray Book. (July 24, August 29, 1914.) January, 1915. 

87. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. V. 

The French Yellow Book, Translated and Prepared for Parliament by the British 
Government. February, 1915. 

88. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. V. 

The French Yellow Book, Translated and Prepared for Parliament by the British 
Government. March, 1915. 

89. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. VI. 

The Austrian Red Book, Official Translation Prepared by the Austrian Govcr- 
ment. April, 1915. 

90. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. VII. 

The Serbian Blue Book. May, 1915. 

19 



LIST OF PUBLICATIONS— Con//nuec/ 

91. The Fundamental Causes of the World War, by Alfred H. Fried. June, 191S. 

92. To the Citizens of the Belligerent States, by G. Heymans. July, 1915. 

93. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. VIII. 

Italy's Green Book, Translation approved by Royal Italian Embassy, Washing- 
ton, D. C. August, 1915. 

94. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. IX. 

Official Correspondence Bewteen the United States and Germany. 
I. Declaration of London, August 6, 1914 — October 24, 1914. 
II. Contraband of War, September 4, 1914 — ^April 26, 1915. 

III. Restraints of Commerce, February 6, 1915 — September 7, 191S. 

IV. Case of the William P. Frye, March 31,1915 — July 30, 1915. September, 1915. 

95. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. X. 

Official Correspondence Between the United States and Great Britain. 
I. Declaration of London, August 6, 1914 — October 22, 1914. 
II. Contraband of War, August s, 1914 — April 10, 1915. 

III. Restraints of Commerce, December 26, 1914 — July 31, 191s. 

IV. "Case of the V/ilhelmina, February 15, 1915 — April 8, 1915. October, 1915. 

96. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. XI. 1 

I. Secretary Bryan's Letter to Senator Stone Regarding Charges of Partiality 

Shown to Great Britain, January 20, 1915. 
II. The Austro-Hungarian Minister for Foreign Affairs to Ambassador Pen- 
field, June 29, 1915. 
III. The Secretary of State to Ambassador Penfield, August 12, 1915. November, 
1915. 

97. Referendum on the Report of the Special Committee on Economic Results of the 

War and American Business. Reprinted by permission of the Chamber of 
Commerce of the United States. December, 1913. 

98. The Land Where Hatred Expires, by Albert L6on Gu6rard. January, 1916. 

99. America's Opinion of the World War, by Eduard Bernstein. Translated by 

John Mez. Februarx, 1916. 

100. International Cooperation, by John Bassett Moore. The Outlook for Inter- 
national Law, by Elihu Root. March, 1916. 

lor. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. XII. 

Statement of Measures Adopted to Intercept the Sea-Borne Commerce of Ger- 
many. Presented to Both Houses of Parliament by Command of His Majesty, 
January, 19 16. 

Great Britain's Measures Against German Trade. A Speech Delivered by the 
Rt. Hon. Sir E. Grey, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in the House of 
Commons, on the 26th of January, 1916. April, 1916. 

20 



I 



LIST OF PUBLICATIONS— Con/rnue^ 



102. Super-Resistance, by Harold C. Goddard. May, 1916. 

103. German White Book on Armed Merchantmen. June, 1916. 

104. Speech of Imperial German Qiancellor before the Reichstag, on April s, 19 16. 

July, 1916. 

, special Bulletins: 

A Brief Outline of the Nature and Aims of Pacifism, by Alfred H. Fried. Trans- 
lated by John Mez. April, 191S. 

Internationalism. A list of Current Periodicals selected and annotated by Fred- 
erick C. Hicks. May, 1915. 

Preparedness as the Cartoonists See It, with introduction by Charles E. Jefferson. 
May, 1915. 

Spirit of Militarism and Non-Military Preparation for Defense, by John Lovejoy 
Elliott and R. Tait McKenzie. June, 1915. 

Existing Alliances and a League of Peace, by John Bates Clark. July, 1915. 

Is Commerce War? By Henry Raymond Mussey. January, 1916. 

Peace Literature of the War, by John Mez. January, 1916. 

Up to the limit of the editions printed, any one of the above will be sent postpaid upon 
5ceipt of a request addressed to the Secretary of the American Association for International 
^inciliation, Postoffice Sub-station 84, New York, N. Y. 



21 



COUNCIL OF DIRECTION OF THE 
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR INTERNATIONAL CONCIUATION 



Lyman Abbott, New York. 

Charles Francis Adams, Boston. 

Edwin A. Alderman, Charlottesville, Va. 

Robert Bacon, New York. 

Richard Bartholdt, St. Louis, Mo. 

George Blumenthal, New York. 

Clifton R. Breckenridge, Fort Smith, 

Arkansas. 
William J. Bryan, Lincoln, Nebraska 
T. E. Burton, Cleveland, Ohio. 
Nicholas Murray Butler, New York. 
Andrew Carnegie, New York. 
Edward Cary, New York. 
Joseph H. Choate, New York. 
Richard H. Dana, Boston, Mass. 
Arthur L. Dasher, Macon, Ga. 
Horace E. Dewing, New York. 
Gano Dunn, New York. 
Charles W. Eliot, Cambridge, Mass. 
John W. Foster, Washington, D. C. 
Austen G. Fox, New York. 
Robert A. Franks, Orange, N. J. 
Robert Garrett, Baltimore, Md. 
Joseph P. Grace, New York. 
John Arthur Greene, New York. 
James M. Greenwood, Kansas City, Mo. 
W. H. Hatten, London, Wis. 
Franklin H. Head, Chicago, III. 
William J. Holland, Pittsburgh, Pa. 
Hamilton Holt, New York. 
David Starr Jordan, Stanford University, 

Cal. 
J. H. Kirkland, Nashville, Tenn. 



Adolph Lewisohn, New York. 

Seth Low, New York. 

Clarence H. Mackay, New York. 

Theodore Marburg, Baltimore, Md. 

Brander Matthews, New York. 

Silas McBee, New York. 

George B. McClellan, Princeton, N. J. 

Andrew J. Montague, Richmond, Va. 

W. W. Morrow, San Francisco, Cal. 

Levi P. Morton, New York. 

Stephen H. Olin, New York. 

Henry S. Pritchett, New York. 

A. V. V. Raymond, Buffalo, N. Y. 

Ira Remsen, Baltimore, Md. 

James Ford Rhodes, Boston, Mass. 

Elihu Root, Washington, D. C. 

J. G. ScHURMAN, Ithaca, N. Y. 

James Brown Scott, Washington, D. C. 

Isaac N. Seligman, New York. 

Charles Hitchcock Sherrill, New Yori 

F. J. V. Skiff, Chicago, III. 

WiLUAM M. Sloane, New York. 

James Speyer, New York. 

Oscar S. Straus, New York. 

Mrs. Mary Wood Swift, Berkeley, Cal. 

George W. Taylor, Demopolis, Ala. 

O. H. Tittman, Washington, D. C. 

W. H. ToLMAN, New York. 

Charlemagne Tower, Philadelphia, Pa. 

Benjamin F. Trueblood, Washington, D. C 

Edward Tuck, Paris, France. 

George E. Vincent, Minneapolis, Minn. 

William D. Wheelwright, Portland, Orx. 



International Conciliation 

Published monthly by the 
American Association for International Conciliation. 
Entered as second class matter at New York, N. Y., 
Postoffice, February 23, 1909, under act oJ July 16, 1894 



INTER ARMA VERITAS 




WILLIAM ALLAN NEIl^ON 
PROFESSOR OF ENGLISH. HARVARD UNIVERSITY 



AUGUST, 1916 
No. 105 



American Association for International Conciliation 

Sub-Station 84 (407 West 1 17th Street) 

New York City 



It is the aim of the Association for International Con- 
ciliation to awaken interest and to seek co-operation 
in the movement to promote international good will. 
This movement depends for its ultimate success upon 
increased international understanding, appreciation, 
and sympathy. To this end, documents are printed 
and widely circulated, giving information as to the 
progress of the movement and as to matters connected 
therewith, in order that individual citizens, the news- 
paper press, and organizations of various kinds may 
have accurate information un these subjects readily 
available. 

It is the aim of the Association to avoid, as far as 
possible, contentious questions, and in particular 
questions relating to the domestic policy of any given 
nation. Attention is to be fixed rather upon those 
underlying principles of international law, international 
conduct, and international organization, which must 
be agreed upon and enforced by all nations if peaceful 
civilization is to continue and to be advanced. A list 
of publications will be found on pages 27, 28 and 29. 



INTER ARMA VERITAS^ 

Near the beginning of the present academic year, I 
listened to an address by an American professor before a 
group of American graduate students. He was speaking 
of the effect of the war upon scholarship, and of the 
opportunity and the duty that would lie before the uni- 
versities of America in consequence of the European 
catastrophe. The situation he described is one of intense 
interest to all of us. For while we work here peacefully 
in our libraries and laboratories, what is it that is happen- 
ing to our colleagues and fellow-students in the Old 
World? The weaklings and slackers and conscientious 
objectors that the voluntary system had left in the 
cloisters of Oxford are even now being arraigned before 
conscription tribunals. For eighteen months, the students 
of the Sorbonne have been reduced to a handful of women 
and the derelicts of the foreign colonies of Paris. And in 
the lecture-rooms of Bonn and Heidelberg, of Freiburg 
and Berlin, the few remaining men attend in the field 
gray of the German army, and hourly expect their sum- 
mons to the front. Into their places will dribble back a 



1 An address delivered before the Columbia University Chapter 
of Phi Beta Kappa, June, 1916. 



stricken handful, lame or blind or with hanging sleeves, 
or with the livid face that tells of the gas that still cor- 
rodes their lungs. The older professors — those of them 
not drafted into the laboratories of munition factories — 
will lecture half-heartedly, making pathetic efforts to 
throw themselves into the task of keeping alight the 
flickering lamp of human learning. Meanwhile, in the 
field, the wastage goes on, and the scholars of the coming 
generation, the young dons and doctors and docents, are 
falling by thousands. And the end is not yet. 

In addition to this loss of men, the speaker I have cited 
recalled the inevitable reduction of the funds at the dis- 
posal of the European universities, the reduction that is 
bound to accompany the efforts of the governments to 
re-establish their finances; and in the face of all these he 
drew a glowing picture of the chance offered to the uni- 
versities of America to snatch the intellectual leadership 
of the world. 

I suppose that he was largely right. I suppose that 
we are now, or are about to be, in a position to out-distance 
the European countries in productive scholarship. Before 
the war we were already abreast in material equipment; 
after the war, it would seem that we ought to be ahead 
in men. Yet we cannot be sure. The great contribu- 
tions to intellectual progress have not always come from 
superb laboratories or vast libraries, with highly organ- 
ized corps of workers; the lone enthusiast in garret or 

4 



cellar is as familiar and as glorious a figure in the annals 
of scholarship and science as the chief of a staff. 

But whether this anticipation of America's future lead- 
ership is sound or no, I confess to a lack of enthusiasm at 
the prospect. A true sportsman has little satisfaction in 
winning a race against an opponent who has broken his 
leg. And those who had cherished the loftiest hopes for 
our future academic development would, I believe, pre- 
fer that we should wait a generation or two longer before 
we win to a place commensurate with oiir numbers and 
resources, rather than that we should align ourselves with 
the commercial interests that are ranged like carrion vul- 
tures round the battlefields of Europe. 

Yet, leaving out of account this chance to steal a 
march upon our intellectual rivals, the war has brought to 
us a duty and an opportunity, a duty and an opportunity 
— much hardfer to rise to than that of which I have just 
spoken — the duty I have meant to indicate in the title 
announced for this address. 

For some decades before the outbreak of the great war 
the world had seen a vast growth of international and 
cosmopolitan sentiment. In some respects this was not 
so great an advance in breadth as might appear, since 
often it consisted merely in the substitution for the ver- 
tical divisions between nations of horizontal divisions be- 
tween social and industrial classes. But in the field of 
scholarship and scientific research there was no such sub- 

5 



stitution. More and more through journals and con- 
gresses and the interchange of students and teachers, the 
learned world was recognizing its essential unity and was 
organizing an intricate and vital co-operation for the ad- 
vancement of human knowledge. Provincialism in learn- 
ing was disappearing ; the wasteful duplication of effort in 
isolated centres was being reduced, and scholars were 
granting to foreign scholars an increasingly generous 
recognition. So far had this gone that when the stonn, 
broke in August, 1914, the first thought of thousands in 
the learned world was that, however the diplomatic and 
military heathen might rage, the children of light had 
nothing to do with their quarrels, and the territory of the 
Muses at least was inviolate and inviolable. 

But alas for human hopes! Hardly had a few weeks 
gone by when these illusions received a rude shock. 
Ninety-three of the leaders of the intellectual life of Ger- 
many issued an "Address to the Civilized Nations" in 
which they gave the lie to all the main charges against 
their government, and demanded that their denial be 
accepted. Of the justice of that denial we have here 
nothing to say: the causes and the conduct of the war 
are not my theme. But into their right to make that 
demand we, their colleagues in a neutral country, had in 
duty to inquire. The result of this inquiry left us gasp- 
ing and astounded. Men trained in close scientific rea- 
soning, like Ostwald and Roentgen and Haeckel, philos- 

6 



ophers like Wundt and Eucken, imaginative artists like 
Hauptmann and Sudermann in letters, Klinger and 
Liebermann in painting, Himiperdinck and Weingartner 
in music, laid aside their sense of evidence, laid aside their 
power of putting themselves in other men's places, 
accepted the ipse dixit of their government, and with 
inconceivable naivete asked that the rest of the world 
should accept their verdict on an issue on which they 
themselves had had no opportunity of investigating or 
weighing the facts. Let me be perfectly clear: I am 
passing no judgment on the question as to whether their 
government was right or wrong. The disastrous fact 
for the spiritual life of Europe is that these leaders of 
thought abdicated their thrones, surrendered their intel- 
lectual independence, and led the way for a general 
capitulation before the forces of national prejudice and 
hatred. That so many of their enemies have followed 
their example makes them less conspicuous but not less 
guilty. 

For the contagion soon spread. In country after 
country of their enemies, scholars hastened to retort to 
the German manifesto. These retorts, it must be ad- 
mitted, were seldom as crude as the original manifesto. 
The reception given to the German docimient taught their 
enemies something of the tactics of controversy. But 
too often these also were ill-informed, illogical, the product 
of minds blinded by passion, minds that had lost all the 

7 



judicial quality which it ought to have been their pride 
to preserve. 

This perverted nationalism soon extended far beyond 
the field of war and politics. The magnificent interde- 
pendence which had promised so much for the future of 
thought began to be ignored and then denied. French 
philosophers who a few months before the war had been 
celebrating the anniversaries of German thinkers and 
warmly acknowledging their discipleship, suddenly dis- 
covered that they never really owed anything to Germans, 
that German philosophy was muddy, not deep, and had 
only led the minds of men into mazes of confusion. 
Germans who had been eager to admire the lucidity of 
French thought now found that it was clear only because 
it was shallow, and that it had never really touched the 
depths. Sir William Ramsay pointed out that all the 
main discoveries, all the germinal ideas of modem science, 
were due to England or France or Russia; Ostwald 
countered by proposing an organization of international 
science after the war, under the leadership of the German 
Emperor, since all non-German science was subsidiary or 
negligible. The French purged their concert programs of 
all German composers to their own impoverishment, while 
the modistes of Berlin and Leipzig spent their ingenuity 
in devising fashions that would owe nothing to Paris and 
London. So far did this reactionary tendency go that it 
began to provide its own cure. The sense of humor 



helped to accomplish what intellectual discipline had 
failed in; and when the restatirateurs substituted new 
German coinages for the familiar French of the bill-of- 
fare, hearty Teutonic laughter broke forth and for a 
moment restored sanity. 

Underlying all this miserable breakdown of the cos- 
mopolitan intelligence there are two main causes which 
it is worth while to consider. One of these is the fallacy 
of rivalry. There is no more persistent source of waste 
in the world than the idea that another man's gain must 
be our loss, that our elevation must involve another's 
degradation. The great saving fact, on the other hand, 
in the progress of the world is the infinite differentiation 
of human nature. Because no two of us are precisely 
alike, there is always the possibility of each of us reaching 
his full development without hampering the other. If 
the energy spent in defeating the other man's (or nation's) 
efforts were devoted to finding out what we ourselves are 
chiefly good for, and then doing it, the chances of har- 
monious co-operation would be vastly increased. Two 
men or two nations, of course, often do want the same 
thing when both can't have it; but that does not imply 
that both ought to want it, that their best interests really 
require it. And the higher one goes in the scale of 
values, the harder it is to make out a case for the neces- 
sity of rivalry, the clearer it is that mutual benefit lies in 
co-operation rather than competition. In normal cir- 

9 



cumstances it is comparatively easy for intelligent men to 
realize all this, but in passionate times of war the 
fallacy runs riot, the emotions blur the vision, and in a 
kind of fury men lay grasping hands on everything for 
their own side and its supposed advantage. 

The other main cause is the will to hate. I suppose 
that every man in certain circumstances is capable of 
taking great satisfaction in hating. In ordinary life it is 
fairly well restrained. Alongside of it lie benevolent 
impulses that counteract it in whole or in part; and, 
while we think with clearness, we are conscious of a mul- 
titude of conflicting considerations that prevent our giv- 
ing way to any such unmixed emotion. But most of us 
have at times yearned for an opportunity free from such 
considerations, for a perfectly clear issue, for a chance 
to let ourselves go with a free rein. There is a promise 
of some fierce joy in at last letting an elemental passion 
have its way with us. Such an opportunity the war 
seemed to offer. Guided, or misguided, by their respec- 
tive governments, almost every national of the continent 
of Etirope believed that his country was fighting for its 
existence, that in facing the enemy he was facing an un- 
provoked assassin. He let himself hate that enemy be- 
cause he believed him the enemy of all that he valued 
most in his fatherland, but still more he believed this 
because he had let himself hate. All the thrill of patriotic 
devotion, of comradeship, of sacrifice, of the lust to Idll, 

10 



were more enjoyable if one could believe that the foe was 
wholly evil, that hate at last was fully justified, that there 
was no place for scruples, intellectual or moral. Civil- 
ization began to give place not only to the mood of the 
primitive savage, but to that of the den and the lair. 

Not all were thus swept away; but of those who re- 
sisted the current many believed that it was best not to 
seek to check the others. They feared that moderation 
in hating, that a just appreciation of the enemy, that a 
remnant of human sympathy for the other side, would 
interfere with a soldier's effectiveness. They valued 
their own intellectual integrity, but were willing to have 
others lose theirs that they might the more mercilessly 
destroy the common enemy. They would let another 
lose his intellectual manhood that they might be the 
better shielded. As if those who gave their lives had 
not a right to the truth ! As if those in the ranks did not 
learn, even in the filth and horror of the trenches more 
than those at home who would keep them blind! For it 
is not among the men who come home battered and 
maimed that one finds the greatest bitterness. Those 
one discovers to be comparatively moderate, discrimin- 
ating, humane, often even kindly towards the foe, in 
contrast with the poisonous fanatic who stays at home 
and sets him on. 

Still others have resisted the current, some openly and 
some in silence. In England, with its tradition of free 

II 



speech, they have not scrupled to speak and write, 
undeterred by a jingo press, undisturbed by the inter- 
ruptions of rowdies. In France and Germany those who 
found they could not risk consent by silence have gone 
into exile, and men like Hermann Hesse and Romain 
RoUand have found an asyliim in Switzerland where they 
could say what they would in the intervals of their 
humanitarian labors. By word and deed these men have 
wrought month after month to uphold their belief that 
the cause they cherish does not need the support of lies or 
exaggeration, and to keep the wounds of war unpoisoned 
by injustice and hatred. Others have found their place at 
home, in silent effort to heal the wounded, to comfort the 
desolate, to feed the orphans, to shelter the homeless — 
friend or enemy. And still others live in the midst of 
the tumult and the shouting, watching their chance .to 
speak their word on behalf of justice, throwing what 
weight they have on the side of the nobler traditions of 
their country, striving that the peace when it comes may 
be a good peace. 

So far I have sought to indicate the fortunes of truth 
in the midst of war in the belligerent countries. I turn 
now to the countries still at peace, to our own country, 
to our own duty. 

Let me say at once that I am no advocate of mental 
neutrality. I should be ashamed to appear before an 
audience such as this, and urge the rising generation of 

12 



I 



American scholars to abstain from a judgment on the 
most momentous issue in the history of the modern world. 
You must not only watch this war; you must study its 
causes and conduct, and you must make up your minds. 
You must not bring upon your heads the judgment de- 
livered to the angel of the church of Laodicea, "because 
you are neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my 
mouth." The quest of truth in the midst of war which 
I am here to urge upon you has nothing in common with 
indifference or that intellectual indolence which takes a 
false pride in coming to no conclusion. 

But to us it is possible, on us it is incumbent, to con- 
sider and to conclude by different methods and in a 
different spirit from those who nearly two years ago were 
called to march to defend the frontiers of their countries. 
They had to take their part and take it at once. We 
have had time to reflect, yet we also must take our part. 
It is a mistake to suppose that, because we are not fight- 
ing, we are not influencing the conduct of this war and 
helping to decide its outcome.. If it is true that organized 
military force was never before employed on so vast a 
scale, it is equally true that never before have belligerents 
been so concerned about external and internal public 
opinion. The machinery for moulding the thought of 
the people in Germany performs its function with scarcelj'' 
less skill and thoroughness than the machinery of the 
army; and the governments of all the warring nations 

13 



have flooded the neutrals with the Hterature of their 
cause. The steadying hand of our own government, 
exerted through the young men of our embassies who 
have visited the prisoners of all the nations, has pre- 
vented untold misery and has checked the operation of 
the brutal and senseless law of reprisals. In spite of the 
sufferings of non-combatants from attacks on land, on 
sea, and from the air, it is probable that these have been 
less than in previous wars in proportion to the magnitude 
of the struggle and the number of men involved. The 
"atrocities" of which we heard so much from both sides 
in the early, weeks of the war have enormously abated, 
largely because of the effect produced on neutral nations. 
Public opinion is still powerful, and will continue to exert 
its influence in proportion as it is just, and it is our busi- 
ness to see that it is as just as possible. 

Our duty, so long as we are outside the struggle, is to 
truth — truth to the past, in the present, and for the 
future. 

Truth to the past. Whatever our judgment be as to 
the immediate issues, to us is entrusted for the time the 
memory of what nations have done for one another and 
for humanity in the past. If we are pro-Ally, it is our 
affair to see that we do no injustice to the past services 
of Germany. We of the universities dare not forget that 
it is largely on German models that we have built our 
advanced scholarship; that it is to the results of German 



industry and organization in their Zeitschriften, Annalen, 
Jahresberichte, and the rest, that we have to turn to 
gain a knowledge of the results of the scientific work of 
the whole word. Are we interested in music, we have 
but to consider what would happen if we dropped the 
works of German genius from the repertories of our 
opera houses and symphony concerts. Are we philoso- 
phers, let us try to think of the history of modern meta- 
physics, psychology, or aesthetics without the German 
contribution. No censure we can pass on the German 
government or the German army of to-day can justify us 
in forgetting Goethe and Schiller, Bach and Beethoven, 
Kant and Hegel. And let us be assured that it is not 
Germany but we who shall suffer if we show ourselves un- 
grateful or unjust, it will be not Germany but we who, 
when this period of strife has passed, shall have shame- 
facedly to set about restoring standards and taking back 
slanders. 

If we are pro-German, it is no less our affair to preserve 
our intellectual perspective as to what we owe to France, 
to Britain, to Italy, to Russia. This country least of 
all can afford to forget France's achievements on behalf 
of political liberty, England's great legacy of constitu- 
tional government and the common law. For France 
there is perhaps least need to speak, since even her 
enemies do not refuse her admiration and sympathy. 
Yet we must not think only of her gallantry. In the 

IS 



Paris of the first winter of the war, when the guns of the 
invader were hardly out of earshot, it was still impossible 
not to feel that there still was the home of ideas, there 
still lay the brain of the world, the great nerve centre of 
its intellectual life. And for England, what need to 
speak to you 

. . . who speak the tongue 
That Shakespeare spake; the faith and morals hold 
Which Milton held ? 

Yet our very nearness is a source of blindness, and, we 
in moments of anger or irritation, can forget our debt, as 
we forget to be thankful for the air we breathe. Even 
though we side with her, we may judge harshly her 
blimdering, her slowness to realize a situation, her appar- 
ent distraction, just because we know these faults too 
well at home. And for Italy — if she seems to you faith- 
less and futile, remember her past 

Italia! oh Italia! thou who hast 

The fatal gift of beauty, which became 

A funeral dower of present woes and past, 

On thy sweet brow is sorrow plough 'd by shame, 

And annals graved in character of flame. 

Oh, God ! that thou wert in thy nakedness 

Less lovely or more powerful, and couldst claim 

Thy right, and awe the robbers back, who press 

To shed thy blood, and drink the tears of thy distress! 

To Russia there is, perhaps, most danger of injustice. 
Yast, mysterious, remote, corrupt and misgoverned, 

i6 



oppressor and oppressed, she commands even from her 
friends only a halting reverence. Politically we will have 
none of her, yet as we turn from her brutal bureaucracy 
let us remember that the Russia that matters for civil- 
ization, the Russia of the great painters, the great musi- 
cians, the great scientists, and the great novelists, has 
never been the Russia of the knout and the pogrom. 
The body of Russia has never yet expressed the soul, and 
as we glance at the contributions each of these nations 
has made in the past to the common treasury of man- 
kind, it is with their souls that we are concerned. 

These things that I seek to recall to you are, I am 
aware, matters of commonplace and superficial observa- 
tion; yet I enumerate them because in the heat and anger 
of these days it is precisely oiir obvious obligations that 
we are apt to dishonor and deny. The belligerents have 
the excuse of a desperate emergency: to us at peace — woe 
to us if we forget. 

Our duty is to truth in the present. The external 
reason for our pursuit of truth in the midst of the crisis, 
I have spoken of in what I have said of the power of the 
public opinion of the neutral nations, and of the necessity 
of keeping that public opinion just and fair. But there 
are internal reasons also, reasons affecting ourselves. 

To be fair in times such as these is a great and difficult 
intellectual task; it is an even greater and more difficult 

17 



moral task. The case you are called upon to judge is a 
highly complicated one, the evidence is offered by inter- 
ested parties, the atmosphere in which it is heard is not 
a judicial one. You must resist prejudice, acquire in- 
formation, sift and weigh statements. The social or 
academic or family environment in which each of us 
moves is almost sure to incline us to one side or the other, 
and having induced us to take a side, to close our eyes 
and surrender ourselves to mere feeling. Most of us 
like to be in harmony with our surroundings: it is more 
comfortable, it calls for less thinking, we do not have to 
exert ourselves to resist. Some of us, however, enjoy 
being in a minority, find zest in making others uncom- 
fortable, are not satisfied unless we have the sensation of 
rowing against the social current. Each disposition has 
its risk if we care about devotion to truth. But so pro- 
foundly have these events moved the world to-day, that 
it is not merely a matter of accepting complacently, or 
opposing whimsically, the prevailing opinion: it is a matter 
of being carried away on winds of passion. The positive 
enthusiasm for the cause of our choice is not so dangerous; 
it is the prevailing contagion of hatred for the other side 
that threatens us both intellectually and morally. 

Nothing is more common than to hear contemptuous 
condemnation of the thought or behavior of this one or 
that of the warring peoples. But it is not for us to hurl 
charges of this sort. The comparative unanimity with 

i8 



which the peoples on the two sides hold contrary views is 
not surprising; and the tendencies we have already noted 
and deplored among them are more easily eixplained and 
excused than the fanaticism which is only too common 
among us. Any people at war is naturally inclined to be- 
lieve its own government, and governments naturally are 
reluctant to give out statements likely to cause distrust 
or discouragement. The few enemy publications that 
filter into belligerent countries are in a foreign language 
and reach a mere handful. Enemy dispatches published 
in the newspapers are neutralized by the news surrounding 
them, or are "corrected" by editorial comment pointing 
to the "true" version issued by the home government. 
In Germany especially there is an extraordinary unanimity 
in the attitude taken by the press on all important ex- 
ternal issues, and it needs uncommon independence of 
judgment to resist the pressure of the daily supply of 
news edited with "tendenz " of editorial comment, and 
of the conversation that one hears everywhere around, 
the tone of which is in turn determined by the newspapers. 
To a far greater extent than is necessary the war anec- 
dotes in all countries are selected to cast discredit on the 
enemy; and what is not accounted for by these external 
considerations is explained by the will to believe the best 
of your own side. The reaction of the mass of the peoples 
to all these influences, if in many ways deplorable, is 
nattiral enough. Those of us who, before the war, have 

19 



enjoyed the graceful hospitality of the French or have 
been warmed by the genial friendliness of the Bavarian 
or the Rhinelander, need not fear that they. will find the 
characteristic qualities of these peoples undermined. It 
is OUT own attitude about which we need to be concerned 
— our danger of harsh judgments, of violent prejudices, 
of the harboring of passions that leave a scar — and for 
which we have not even the justification of danger or 
panic. Against these we have need of all our mental and 
moral energy and determination if we care to maintain 
the attitude of seeking truth in the present. 

Our duty is to truth for the future. The war will not 
last forever. The wheels of commerce will begin to turn 
again and we shall re-leam our material interdependence. 
Learning will take up its task again, with depleted ranks 
and impoverished resoiurces, it is true, and we shall re- 
leam our intellectual interdependence. But there is a 
grave risk that the license given to emotion while the 
struggle goes on will have so distorted our thinking, and 
the distorted thinking will in turn have so perverted our 
feelings, that kindliness between the peoples will be long 
postponed. For the physical wounds incurred in the war 
the neutral peoples have done much, and the scores of 
nurses and surgeons that have gone from our hospitals 
have nobly spent themselves to sterilize these wounds 
and hasten their healing. The duty which the thinking 

20 



men of the countries at peace owe to the belligerents is 
that of a kind of spiritual and intellectual antisepsis. 
Into the more honest animosity and even rage that nor- 
mally springs up between men in war it is possible to 
introduce a more deadly virus, the virus of lies, of exag- 
geration, of the hiding from either side of the generosities 
of the other. In this diabolical work the press has been 
busy ever since the outbreak, and we have seen how men 
who ought to have stood objectively for truth have been 
as guilty as any sensational of chauvinistic journalist. 
We ourselves have not been innocent; but for the sake of 
the future of civilization, if not for our own honor, let us 
have done with it; let us emulate our colleagues of the 
hospitals in keeping clean the wounds of the nations, and 
give them a chance to heal without disfiguring scars. I 
do not plead for silence before outrageous wrong. The 
truth may be painful, and it must be, it will be told. It 
is not truthful reproach but injustice that rankles and 
keeps the sore open from generation to generation. And 
however passionately we feel on behalf of either side, we 
can never help its cause by the slander of its enemy. 
Let us remember for the sake of the future that even the 
man who gives himself mistakenly for a bad cause de- 
serves our sympathy: 

Toll! Let the great bells toll 

Till the clashing air is dim . 
Did they wrong this parted soul? , 

We will make it up to him. 

21 



Toll! Let him never guess 

"What work they set him to. 
Laurel, laurel, yes; 

He did what they bade him do. 
Praise, and never a whispered hint but the fight he fought was good; 
Never a word that the blood on his sword was his country's own 
heart's blood. 

A flag for the soldier's bier 

Who dies that his land may live. 
Oh, banners, banner-s here, 

That he doubt not nor misgive! 
That he heed not from the tomb 

The evil days draw near 
When his nation, robed in gloom, 
With its faithless past shall strive. 
Let him never dream that his bullet's scream went wide of its 

island mark. 
Home to the heart of his darling land where she stumbled and 
sinned in the dark. 

I have spoken so far of our duty to truth as it affected 
Eiirope. It has bearings also nearer home. We also as 
a nation stand at a critical point in our history; our 
traditional policies are being called in question, and in 
some fundamental matters we stand at the parting of 
the ways. Here again clear thinking is as important as 
it is difficult. At every turn we are liable to be swayed 
by feelings rather than by facts and principles. We send 
a punitive expedition into Mexico, and let the question 
of our withdrawing it become confused and blurred by 
petty considerations of saving our face, instead of con- 
sidering merely what is wise and just. We come to the 

22 



verge of a foreign war, and when we ought to discuss the 
question of arming ourselves, either for defence or for 
more aggressive championship of what we may decide is 
right, we let oiirselves be swayed by personal considera- 
tions, by the traditional bonds of party, or, basest of all, 
by prospects of pecuniary advantage. We let ourselves 
be entangled by catch-words and distracted from the 
point at issue. Our whole behavior in the present matter 
of military preparation is like that of a man who rushes 
into a gunshop to buy a weapon, but does not know 
whether he wants to use it against a burglar, a cat, or a 
grizzly bear. I have nothing to say against those who 
wish to put themselves in readiness and offer their per- 
sonal services to their country; any of us may well be con- 
vinced that there lies our duty. But the peculiar con- 
tribution which you owe to the nation, you who have 
been trained to think, is to help her to think — clearly, 
honestly, wisely. 

There are some still larger questions which in the near 
future will call for solution more loudly than ever before: 
the question of war and peace in general, the question of 
race, the question of nationalism. In spite of the im- 
pression which the horror and waste of the present struggle 
has made upon the imagination of the world, we are far 
from a universally pacificist sentiment. Distinguished 
writers, such as Thomas Mann, have not hesitated in the 
midst of the carnage to glorify war. *'In peace," he 

23 



cries, "man deteriorates. Idle rest is the grave of cour- 
age. Law is the friend of the weak, and aims at reducing 
the world to a common level; but war brings out strength." 
Others, less brutal, cannot resist the evidence of the bene- 
fits of war. A candid judgment must admit that these 
are great. No one who has noted the spiritual regenera- 
tion of France, the cleansing of the Augean stables of 
political corruption, the purifying of art and letters from 
a hundred abnormalities and trivialities; no one who has 
watched in Germany the countless instances of gener- 
osity, devotion to the common cause, self-sacrifice; the 
growth of kindliness between classes; the improved re- 
lations between officers and men; the patience under 
privation and suffering; no one, I say, who has seen these 
things, even if he ignores the, heroism of the battlefield, 
can believe that the results of war are totally evil. And 
peace is not without its evils. There is an appalling 
danger for anyone who finds himself profiting from the 
calamities of others. And, though I cannot pretend to 
have any doubt that the world must finally put down 
war, I confess that the futile babblings of some pacificists 
make one want to cry with Tennyson: 

This huckster put down war! Can he tell 
Whether war be a cause or a consequence? 
Put down the passions that make earth hell! 
Down with ambition, avarice, pride, 
Jealousy, down! cut off from the mind 
The bitter springs of anger and fear! 

24 



Down, too, down at your own fireside, 
With the evil tongue and the evil ear, 
For each is at war with mankind ! 

The question of race we had thought settled. The 
scientists had told us that there were no pure races in 
Europe, and that consequently war on racial grounds was 
absurd. But I have heard Germans indignantly re- 
proach England for siding with Belgium because English- 
men and Germans were of the same stock. And the 
journals of Paris have abounded in articles contrasting 
the Latin races with the Teuton, forgetful of the Germanic 
blood in their British allies, the Lombards in Italy, and 
the Celtic and Prankish elements in France itself. It is 
especially for us, compounded as we are of almost all the 
races of the world, to think this out too, and end the 
absurdity of racial jealousy. 

The question of nationality and patriotism is the most 
difficult of all. I began by referring to the growth of 
internationalism before the war. Whatever the war may 
have done to make us revise our opinions on nationalism 
in politics, nothing has occurred . that need shake our 
faith in the internationalism of the intellect. We can 
afford to recognize what we gain in richness and variety 
from the contrasts of national cultures, national tempera- 
ments, national manners, without losing sight of the 
loftier unity of the spirit in which all these merge. The 
solution of this problem has been indicated by the writer 

25 



who, among all the leaders of thought in Etirope, has 
alone risen to the height of this great occasion, by the 
Frenchman who, though for the moment exiled and de- 
cried, is destined to be recognized as one of the permanent 
glories of France, by that great lover of truth who has in 
the midst of war abated no jot of his allegiance to truth 
or to France, Romain Rolland. 

"For the finer spirits of Europe," he writes, "there are 
two dwelling-places: our earthly fatherland, and that 
other City of God. Of the one we are the guests, of the 
other, the builders. To the one let us give our lives and 
our faithful hearts; but neither family, friend, nor father- 
land, nor aught that we love, has power over the spirit. 
The spirit is the light. It is otu- duty to lift it above 
tempests and thrust aside the clouds that threaten to 
obscure it; to build higher and stronger, dominating the 
injustice and hatred of nations, the walls of that city 
wherein the souls of the whole world may assemble." 



26 



LIST OF PUBUCATIONS 



Nos. 1-83 (April, 1907, to December, 1914). Including papers by Baron d'Estoumelles 
de Constant, George Trumbull Ladd, Elihu Root, Barrett Wendell, Charles E. Jefferson, 
Seth Low, William James, Andrew Carnegie, Pope Pius X, Heinrich Lammasch, Norman 
Angell, Charles W. Eliot, Sir Oliver Lodge, Lord Haldane and others. A list of titles and 
authors will be sent on application. 



83. Official Documents Bearing upon the European War. Series I. 

I. The Austro.- Hungarian Note to Servia. 
II. The Servian Reply. 

III. The British White Paper. 

IV. The German White Book. October, 1914. 

84. Additional Official Documents Bearing upon the European War. Series II. 

I. Speech of the Imperial Chancellor to Reichstag, August 4, 1914. 
II. Speech of the Prime Minister to House of Commons, August 6, 1914. 

III. The Russian Orange Book. 

IV. The Original Texts of the Austrian Note of July 23, 1914, and the Servian 

Reply of July 25, 1914, with annotations. November, 1914. 

85. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. III. 

I. The Neutrality of Belgium and Luxemburg. 
II. Address of the President of the Council to the French Senate, August 4, 1914. 

III. OfBcial Japanese Documents. 

IV. Address to the People by the Emperor of Germany. December, 1914. 

86. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. IV. 

I. Turkish Official Documents. November, 1914. 
II. Speech of the Imperial Chancellor to the Reichstag. December 2, 1914. 
III. The Belgian Gray Book. (July 24, August 29, 1914.) January, 1915. 

87. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. V. 

The French Yellow Book, Translated and Prepared for Parliament by the British 
Government. February, 1913. 

88. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. V. 

The French Yellow Book, Translated and Prepared for Parliament by the British 
Government. March, 19 13. 

89. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. VI. 

The Austrian Red Book, Official Translation Prepared by the Austrian Govern- 
ment. April, 1913. 

90. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. VII. 

The Serbian Blue Book. May, 1913. 

27 



LIST OF PUBLICATIONS— Co/j/mueJ 

91- The Fundamental Causes of the World War, by Alfred H. Fried. June, 19IS. 
02. To the Citizens of the Belligerent States, by G. Heymans. July, 1915. 

93. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. VIII. 

Italy's Green Book, Translation approved by Royal Italian Embassy, Washing- 
ton, D. C. August, 1913. 

94. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. IX. 

Official Correspondence Between the United States and Germany. 
I. Declaration of London, August 6, 1914 — October 24, 19 14. 
II. Contraband of War, September 4, 1914 — April 26, 1915. 

III. Restraints of Commerce, February 6, 1915 — September 7, 1915. 

IV. Caseof the William P. Frye, March3i,i9is— July 30,1913. September, 1915. 

PS. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. X. 

Official Correspondence Between the United States and Great Britain. 
I. Declaration of London, August 6, 1914 — October 22, 1914. 
II. Contraband of War, August 5, 1914 — April 10, 1915. 

III. Restraints of Commerce, December 26, 1914 — July 31, 1913. 

IV. Case of the Wilhelmina, February 15, 1915 — April 8, 1915. October, 191S. 

96. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. XL 

I. Secretary Bryan's Letter to Senator Stone Regarding Charges of Partiality 
Shown to Great Britain, January 20, 1915. 
II. The Austro- Hungarian Minister for Foreign Aflfairs to Ambassador Pen- 
field, June 29, 191.1. 
III. The Secretary of State to Ambassador Penfield, August 12, 1915. 
November, 1913. > 

97. Referendum on the Report of the Special Committee on Economic Results of the 

War and American Business. Reprinted by permission of the Chamber of 
Commerce of the United States. December, 1913. 

98. The Land Where Hatred Expires, by Albert L6on Gu6rard. January, 1916. 

99. Ameriqa's Opinion of the World War, by Eduard Bernstein. Translated by 

John Mez. February, 1916. 

100. International Cooperation, by John Bassett Moore. The Outlook for Inter- 
national Law, by Elihu Root. March, 1916. 

loi. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. XII. 

Statement of Measures Adopted to Intercept the Sea-Borne Commerce of Ger- 
many. Presented to Both Houses of Parliament by Command of His Majesty, 
January, 1916. 

Great Britain's Measures Against German Trade. A Speech Delivered by the 
Rt. Hon. Sir E. Grey, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in the House of 
Commons, on the 26th of January, 1916. April, 1916. 

28 



LIST OF PUBLICATIONS— Con/mueJ 

102. Super-Resistance, by Harold C. Goddard. May, 1916. 

103. German White Book oa Armed Merchantmen. June, 1916. 

104. Speech of Imperial German Chancellor before the Reichstag, on April s, 1916. 

July, 1916. 

lOS- Inter Arma Veritas, by William Allan Neilson. August, 1916. 

Special Bulletins: 

A Brief Outline of the Nature and Aims of Pacifism, by Alfred H. Fried. Trans- 
lated by John Mez. April, 1915. 

Internationalism. A list of Current Periodicals selected and annotated by Fred- 
erick C. Hicks. May, 1915. 

Preparedness as the Cartoonists See It, with introduction by Charles E. Jefferson. 
May. 1913. 

Spirit of Militarism and Non-Military Preparation for Defense, by John Lovejoy 
Elliott and R. Tait McKenzie. June, 191S. 

Existing Alliances and a League of Peace, by John Bates Clark. July, 1915. 

Is Commerce War? By Henry Raymond Mussey. January, 1916. 

Peace Literature of the War, by John Mez. January, 1916. 

Up to the limit of the editions printed, any one of the above will be sent postpaid upon 
receipt of a request addressed to the Secretary of the American Association for International 
Conciliation, PostofBce Sub-station 84, New York, N. Y. 



29 



COUNCIL OF DIRECTION OF THE 
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR INTERNATIONAL CONCIUATION 



Lyuan Abbott, New York. 

Charles Francis Adams, Boston. 

Edwin A. Alderman, Charlottesville, Va. 

Robert Bacon, New York. 

Richard Bartholdt, St. Louis, Mo. 

George Blumenthal. New York. 

Clifton R. Breckenridge, Fort Smith, 

Arkansas. 
William J. Bryan, Lincoln, Nebraska. 
T. E. Burton, Cleveland, Ohio. 
Nicholas Murray Butler, New York. 
Andrew Carnegie, New York. 
Edward Cary, New York. 
Joseph H. Choate, New York. 
Richard H. Dana, Boston, Mass. 
Arthur L. Dasher, Macon, Ga. 
Horace E. Deming, New York. 
Gano Dunn, New York. 
Charles W. Eliot, Cambridge, Mass. 
John W. Foster, Washington, D. C. 
Austen G. Fox. New York. 
Robert A. Franks, Orange, N. J. 
Robert Garrett, Baltimore, Md. 
Joseph P. Grace. New York. 
John Arthur Greene, New York. 
W. H. Hatten. London, Wis. 
Franklin H. Head, Chicago, III. 
William J. Holland, Pittsburgh, Pa. 
HAtnLTON Holt, New York. 
David Starr Jordan, Stanford University, 

Cal. 
J. H. Kirkland, Nashville, Tenn. 
Aoolph Lewisohn, New York. 



Seth Low, New Yore. 

Clarence H. Mackay, New York. 

Theodore Marburg, Baltimore, Md. 

Brander Matthews, New York. 

Silas McBee, New York. 

George B. McClellan, Princeton, N. J. 

Andrew J. Montague, Richmond, Va. 

W. W. Morrow, San Francisco, Cau 

Levi P. Morton, New York. 

Stephen H. Olin, New York. 

Henry S. Pritchett, New York. 

A. V. V. Raymond, Buffalo, N. Y. 

Ira Remsen, Baltimore, Md. 

James Ford Rhodes, Boston, Mass. 

Elihu Root, Washington, D. C. 

J. G. Schurman, Ithaca, N. Y. 

James Brown Scott, Washington, D. C 

Isaac N. Seligman, New York. 

Charles Hitchcock Sherrill, New York. 

F. J. V. Skiff, Chicago, III. 

William M. Sloane, New York. 

James Speyer, New York. 

Oscar S. Straus, New York. 

Mrs. Mary Wood Swift, Berkeley, Cai- 

George W. Taylor, Demopolis, Ala. 

O. H. Tittman, Washington, D. C. 

W. H. Tolman, New York. 

Charlemagne Tower, Philadelphia, Pa. 

Benjamin F. Trueblood, Newton Highlands, 

Mass. 
Edward Tuck, Paris, France. 
George E. Vincent, Minneapous, Mnm. 
WauAU D. Wheelwright, Portland, Oks. 



30 



SCI 



International Conciliation 

Published monthly by the 
American Association for International Conciliation. 
Entered as second class matter at New York, N. Y. , 
Postoffice, February 23, 1909, under act of July 16. 1894 



THE PROPOSAL FOR A LEAGUE TO 
ENFORCE PEACE 

Affirmative— WILLIAM HOWARD TAFT 
Negative —WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN 

Lake Mohonk Conference on International Arbitration, 1916 




SEPTEMBER. 1916 
No. 106 



American Association (or International Conciliation 

Sub-Station 84 (407 West 11 7th Street) 

New York City 



It is the aim of the Association for International Con- 
ciliation to awaken interest and to seek co-operation 
in the movement to promote international good will. 
This movement depends for its ultimate success upon 
increased international understanding, appreciation, 
and sympathy. To this end, documents are printed 
and widely circulated, giving information as to the 
progress of the movement and as to matters connected 
therewith, in order that individual citizens, the news- 
paper press, and organizations of various kinds may 
have accurate information on these subjects readily 
available. 

It is the aim of the Association to avoid, as far as 
possible, contentious questions, and in particular 
questions relating to the domestic policy of any given 
nation. Attention is to be fixed rather upon those 
underlying principles of international law, international 
conduct, and international organization, which must 
be agreed upon and enforced by all nations if peaceful 
civilization is to continue and to be advanced. A Ust 
of publications will be found on pages 36 to 38. 



THE PROPOSAL FOR A LEAGUE TO 
ENFORCE PEACE— AFFIRMATIVE 

WILUAM HOWARD TAFT 

Ladies and Gentlemen: It is a great pleasure to be 
one of this Conference. I know I am not fitted to preside 
over it, but I have already discovered, having attended a 
business meeting, that political experience in the study of 
machines has not been lost on the Managing Committee 
connected with this Conference and therefore, I expect to 
be guided as fully and completely as the exigency may 
require, and if I overstep the boundary, I hope I may be 
properly rebuked. 

I want to speak to you of something that has come 
from this Institution and others like it, devised with the 
hope that it contains something constructive in its feat- 
ures, not new, perhaps, but formulated in such a way in 
its platform as to approve itself to a great many who 
have been aroused by the present war to the necessity of 
doing something and providing some means that shall be 
affirmative — to make less likely a recurrence of the dread- 
ful cataclysm that we have witnessed and are witnessing 
in Europe. The League to Enforce Peace is an associa- 
tion organized through the activities of three or four 
gentlemen who were first dazed with the defeat of their 
hopes by the outbreak of the war and who, after they re- 
covered themselves, thought it was wise to bring together 
as many interested in the subject as they could within 
the cosy limits of the Century Club at dinner. There is 



something about a dinner that always helps to promote 
agreement. It creates a desire to be unanimous. Much 
to the surprise of the twenty gentlemen who were there, 
we did agree, and then, lest we might not hide our light 
under a bushel or lose for lack of appreciation of the 
importance of our own work, we shrunk from the public 
gaze by gathering at Independence Hall in Philadelphia, 
and there we agreed upon the platform with very few 
changes. 

I only recite in general what the platform is, not be- 
cause I think that most who are here do not know it, 
but merely for the purpose of refreshing their recollection 
and making it the basis of my remarks, which are directed 
toward some controverted features in the practical working 
of the plan. The plan contemplates an international agree- 
ment signed by as many powers as can be induced to sign 
it. The first provision is for a permanent Court of Justice 
international, with jurisdiction to consider and decide all 
controversies of a justiciable character arising between two 
.or more members of the League, the power of the Court 
to be extended to passing upon questions finally and in a 
binding way upon whether the issue presented is a justici- 
able one and therefore, within the jurisdiction of the Court. 
The second provision is that all questions not of a justici- 
able character, leading to differences between two or more 
members of the League, are to be prejsented to a Commis- 
sion, before which evidence is to be introduced, argimients 
are to be made and then the Commission is to recommend 
something in the nature of a compromise. The third 
provision is that if any one member of the League, violat- 
ing its pledged faith, shall begin hostilities against any 
other member of the League before the questions creating 
the trouble have been submitted either for decision by the 



Court or for recommendation by the Commission, then all 
the other members of the League agree to defend the 
member prematurely attacked against the one who begins 
the hostilities; and to use, first, economic means, and then 
military force for that purpose. The fourth plank pro- 
vides that International Congresses shall be convened 
with representatives from all members of the League, who 
shall consider the subject of International Law, shall 
extend it in a Legislative way and submit the changes thus 
agreed upon to the nations constituting the League. If 
there is no objection within a year, then the rules changing 
or extending existing International Law shall be considered 
as rules for the decision of the permanent Court. 

Now, one of the things that has been very gratifying to 
those who have been connected with the League, has been 
the eagerness with which, in very many quarters, the prop- 
ositions have been accepted and approved. Of course 
there have been criticisms the character of which can be 
noted when I tell you that in England the objection to the 
title was that we have "Peace '' in it at all. They wished us 
to strike that out and just call it a League of Nations, 
whereas from Oregon we got the proposition that we should 
strike out the word "Enforce." If we had struck out 
"Peace" and struck out "Enforce," it would be what 
Governor Allen used to call a "damn barren ideality." But 
we thought if we left out Peace we would be leaving Hamlet 
out of the play, so wc concluded that in England they 
might call it a League of Nations if they retained its real 
features, and that that gentlem.an who declined to come 
in because we had force in it — we would have to consent to 
let him stay out. It would seem that many had been wait- 
ing for the formulation of some such proposals, and if ,1 may 
judge from the comments on them, what attracts is its 



affirmative and constructive quality in the proposition that 
physical force be added to the weight of moral force in 
order to prevent a general war, with the hope that the 
threat will be enough without actual resort to military or 
economic means. 

Now I want to emphasize in this plan a number of its 
features, with a view of taking up some of the objections. 
First, I would like to emphasize the distinction between 
justiciable and non-justic-able. That has led to the divi- 
sion into a court and a commission, the court to consider 
justiciable questions, the commission to consider non- 
justiciable questions. Non-justiciable questions are those 
which cannot be settled according to the principles of law 
or equity. The justiciable ones are those that can be so 
settled. There are a great many non- justiciable questions 
that can arise between nations that may well lead to war, 
and in that respect is not so different in otir domestic lite. 
Take the case of Mrs. A., who has a lawn upon which she 
allows the children of Mrs. B. to play, Mrs. B. being a 
neighbor, and Mrs. C. is the neighbor on the other side 
and she does not let Mrs. C.'s children play on that lawn 
because she has had some previous experience with Mrs. 
C.'s children and she finds that the^' are young mustangs 
and dig up the lawn and tear the flowers and everything of 
that sort. Now she has a perfect right to say who shall 
come on that lawn and who shall not, but there well may be 
an issue between Mrs. C. and Mrs. A. growing out of that 
discrimination. It is non-justiciable; you cannot settle it 
in court, unless perhaps Mr. C. comes home and Mrs. C. 
tells Mr. C. about it and asks him to go over and see Mr. A. 
about it; then you may have a justiciable question. 
[Laughter.] But the issue then is not whether Mrs. A. was 
right in her judgme;nt of Mrs. C.'s 'children and her dis- 

6 



crimination against them in favor of Mrs. B.'s; the justici- 
able issue usually settles down to the ultimate fact whether 
Mr. A. or Mr. C. hit first. 

This is a domestic illustration, but we are having just 
such a situation with respect to Japan and China. We 
have a right to exclude the Japanese if we please; we have 
a right to exclude the Chinese. We are a bit inconsistent; 
we wish the Chinese trade but we do not care for the 
Chinese. We have a color scheme in our immigration 
and naturalization laws; it is limited to black and white 
and we are very fastidious about the browns and yellows. 
Such a question may very well lead to friction and lead to 
something worse. I only give that as an illustration of a 
non-justiciable question which in some way or other must 
be provided for. You can arbitrate a non-justiciable 
question if both parties are willing to it ; you can leave any 
question of any sort to a Board of Arbitration or a single 
arbitrator if you are willing to do it and abide his decision, 
but you cannot submit such a question to a court, because 
a court has to proceed according to rules of law and there 
are many questions that you cannot dispose of according to 
rules of law. You can see that in the jurisdiction of the 
Supreme Court of the United States. It has under the 
Constitution the power to sit as in a National Tribunal and 
the duty to sit, because its judicial power extends to contro- 
versies between two or more States. Now the Supreme 
Court, through Mr. Justice Bradley and other of the 
Justices, has said a number of times that there are con- 
troversies between States that the court cannot consider 
because they are non-justiciable; they cannot be settled 
on principles of law or equity. In such a case, of course, 
if a State may not have a remedy through the court, it 
cannot have any remedy at all, because if it attempted to 

7 



enforce its remedy, to use force to establish what it 
believes its rights or interests to be, then Uncle Sam 
would step in to restrain that State by force. This is the 
difference between the Supreme Court as an instance of 
an international tribunal and a commission of arbitration 
between independent States. j 

Objection has been made to giving to the Permanent 
Court the power to decide whether the question before it is 
justiciable or not ; in other words, the power to decide upon 
its own jurisdiction. This is not giving it any executive 
power. Every domestic court has it. The question 
whether an issue is one of law or equity is a question that 
such a court is entirely competent to decide. If such a 
question arises, the person against whom the complaint is 
filed or the nation against which the complaint is filed 
ought not, it seems to me, to be given the opportunity to 
say, '' I decline to submit to this jurisdiction because in my 
judgment this question is non-justiciable and cannot be 
settled on the basis of, law or equity." I think if we are 
establishing a pennanent court, we ought to establish it so 
that a party may be brought in against his will. That 
is the case with us in a domestic court. The court 
issues its summons, brings in a party whether he thinks 
the court has jurisdiction or not. If the party chooses 
to raise the question, the court passes on it, and when the 
court has passed on it, that settles it. 

Now I think therefore, with .C3spect to that kind of a 
question, it ought not to be voluntary with the parties. 
Nations are much more willing to make agreements in the 
future to submit abstract questions than they are to submit 
a burning issue in respect to which, while the}^ may feel that 
the law is against them, they have some sort of an equity 
in the back of their heads that could not be expounded 

8 



or would not be tolerated in court. We should take ad- 
vantage of this willingness and bind them by agreement 
as to general jurisdiction to be interpreted and applied 
by the court itself. Objection is made to this on the 
ground that it surrenders too much of a Nation's sover- 
eignty. I do not think so. It may encounter opposition 
when it is brought up in a world's conference, but I think 
we here ought to stand for it and press it as far as we can 
in order that the agreement which shall be made shall 
cover as much ground and be as effective as possible. 

The reason why we have not one body to dispose of both 
legal and non-legal questions — we might have a com- 
mission of arbitration that cotild dispose of legal ques- 
tions and also non-legal questions — but the reason why 
we make a division is important. We wish to settle legal 
questions by a court that proceeds on principles of law 
and equity, and decides without regard to the will of the 
parties. A commission of arbitration is a continuance of 
the diplomatic function of negotiation. The commission 
of arbitration usually has a representative of each party 
on it, and such representatives are not regarded. 
You may say they are, but really they are not regarded 
as judges; they are regarded as advocates of the parties 
who go into the conference room with the other members 
of the Board of Arbitration and there continue the argu- 
ments. The result in an arbitration is generally what a 
negotiation is for; namely, a compromise, and the Board 
of Arbitration seeks to please, as near as it can, both 
parties. Well, that does not lead to exact justice, so 
that a nation that has a real claim against another may 
feel loath to go into such an arbitration when the law 
and equity j testify. 

Another feature that I wish to emphasize is that while 



the establishment of the permanent court would doubtless 
create an obligation on the part of those who entered into 
litigation to abide that judgm^ent, the third clause for en- 
forcing the agreement only goes to the extent of enforcing 
the agreement by using economic and military means to 
compel the submission, and the delay of any action until 
there has been a decision by the court or by the commis- 
sion. In other words, A and B are brought into court ; A is 
the complainant, B the defendant; the court decides 
against B and renders a judgment. Now, being parties to 
the League, B is bound by that judgment to A, but when D 
and E and F are called upon to comply with their limited 
obligation under the League, they may say B submitted the 
case, he waited until the judgment, he did not institute 
hostilities until after judgment was rendered, and we, under 
this agreement, are under no obligation to enforce the 
judgment by using oiu* military forces to bring it about. 

Now that has been the subject of criticism. It has been 
suggested that we ought to have the military forces of all 
those connected with the League, not only to prevent a 
hasty beginning of war before submission, but that we 
ought to have all bound to use their economic and military 
forces to enforce the judgm.ent rendered. Well, that was 
made the subject of very considerable thought, but it was 
finally concluded that we ought not to be over-ambitious. 
It was thought that if we could stop hostilities until there 
had been a full hearing of a dispute, the introduction of 
evidence and the argument and delay incident to all that, 
that we might reasonably cotmt on some settlement 
between the parties after they had had the time to think 
which was necessarily given by the discussion, the hearing 
and the delay. Some time we hope that it may come to. 
the use of the Sheriff to enforce the judgment as well as 

lO 



to keep peace until the judgment is rendered, but up to 
this tknewe have not been ambitious to that extent. 

Now, so much for the judgment. What about the com- 
promise? Ought we to enforce the compromise? Can we 
do more with respect to the compromise than merely to 
have the hearing, recommendation and delay? The Allies 
might enforce a judgment because that follows according 
to the rules of law and equity, but could we enforce a 
compromise? Would not that be going too far and com- 
pelling parties to abide the exercise of discretion in matters 
that are difficult to decide because there are no rules for 
decision? That is the question that troubled us. It is 
easy to hold them off until the compromise has been 
recommended; that makes a definite day, but when it 
comes to enforcing the compromise recommended in a 
matter that cannot be decided on legal principles, it seems 
to us that it is a little too ambitious to undertake it. 

Now it is said that this leaves something too open and 
that war may creep in. I agree; it does, and anybody that 
says that he has got a machine that will work every time 
to keep away war, says something that I cannot credit. 
I believe he is sincere if he says it, but I think his con- 
clusion impeaches his judgment some. I feel that we 
cannot make progress if we are going to attempt the 
impossible, because I think the whole plan will break 
down and the breaking down will be worse than if we 
attempted less and succeeded in it. Now the opportune- 
ness of these proposals is growing more and more apparent 
to those who are charged with the duty of carrying on the 
work of the League to Enforce Peace. I do not know 
how near the end of the war we are, but we are cer- 
tainly very much nearer the end than we were in 19 14. 
That is a proposition that we can establish ; and there are 

II 



indications that people are getting tired on the other side 
and there are suggestions that point to a possible collapse, 
certainly to a trend toward peace. Under these con- 
ditions the opportuneness of the proposal seems to press 
itself on the men most concerned with the struggle. 

A gentleman came to see me the other day who had had 
conferences with Sir Edward Grey, with Monsieur Briand 
and with Mr. von Jagow, in which he discussed the pro- 
posals of the League to Enforce Peace. He reported to me 
that Messrs. Grey and Briand did not see how a satisfac- 
tory peace could be established unless it was on condition 
of some such international agreement as this of the League 
to Enforce Peace. Mr. von Jagow thought the plan was a 
good one but he doubted whether it cotdd be adopted. 
Of course this is a working hypothesis. In detail it may 
be changed, but the general proposal that by the united 
force of all the powers of Europe the hot-heads in two 
nations shall be restrained from involving the whole of 
the world in another such disaster, is too good to give 
up. That idea ought to be cultivated, and European 
nations look to the United States to lead in the matter 
of its suggestion and of its being brought to the attention 
of a world conference and urged. I think the views of 
these European statesmen very significant, and it grows 
more significant the more you think about it. They are 
discussing the question of what the end of the war shall 
be; they are discussing how the object of all to prevent 
future war shall be attained. Is not this an opportunity 
and a great one? If that be true, then isn't it our duty 
to stir up our people on the subject, to iterate and reiterate 
the wisdom of the proposals? 

I was not so much impressed when I was earlier in 
political as I am now with the necessity of repetition and 



repetition and repetition and again repetition in order to 
spread an idea among the people — all people. When ycu 
read the New York papers for a week and hear the same 
thing repeated in one form and another, you conclude 
everj'^body of the hundred millions knows all about it and 
agrees with it. Well, it isn't true. The circle of those who 
know that such an issue is being mooted is small and the 
task of bringing the question home to the whole American 
people is a vast work. Professor Dounsbury of Yale was in 
the habit of saying that one of the remarkable things he had 
discovered in his career of teaching was thewonderful capac- 
ity of the under- graduate mind to resist the acquisition of 
knowledge. And therefore if we have something that we 
think is good, if we have something that we think the 
American people ought to approve, something which they 
ought to give a mandate to their representatives in a world 
conference to stand for, then we ought to agitate and agi- 
tate and agitate, and that is the reason why we have an 
organization; that is the reason why some of us seize every 
occasion to talk about it in season and out of season ; that 
is the reason why you have this infliction to-night. 

Now I want to consider, as I said in the opening, some of 
the objections that have been made. The first objection is 
that membership in the League is impracticable for us 
because it would require a great standing army for us to 
perform our part of the obligation in the third clause. 
Well, I do not think that is a considered objection. We 
are now engaged in a campaign for reasonable prepared- 
ness, and the limits of what that preparedness should be 
are gradually being hammered out. Certainly if that 
which seems to be regarded as a reasonable military army 
force and naval force is to be maintained, then it will fur- 
nish all that we need to contribute to any joint force to 

13 



carry out our part of the obligation. It must be borne in 
mind that we shall only be one of a niimber of contributors 
if the plan can be carried out. Now there are many who 
say that they are not in favor of this plan but they are in 
favor of an international police force. Well, what is the 
difference? We do not claim any patent on this plan and 
we are quite willing to call it an international police force, 
but it must be constituted in a practical way, and when 
the joint forces are united and are doing the police duty 
of the world, it is true to say that they are not carrying 
on v/ar, but enforcing justice. 

In the second place, there is a constitutional objection. 
That does not strike me as very formidable. Perhaps it is 
because I know something about the Constitution. At 
least I am trying to teach it and if there is anything that 
makes you know something about a subject it is to tr}'^ to 
teach it. It is said in the first place that the provision for a 
permanent court is unconstitutional in that it delegates the 
power to a tribunal to decide questions concerning the 
foreign relations of this country which must be decided by 
the President or by the President and the Senate or by the 
President and Congress. Well, if that be true, then we can- 
not have any arbitration of any sort and agree to abide by 
it. That same delegation is involved in e\'ery arbitration 
that we have had. We have agreed when we went into an 
arbitration that what tribunal decides is to bind us. To 
that extent we yield our discretion and liberty to control 
our own action by the judgment of another. Now, in 
Jay's Treaty we had a provision for an arbitration in 1 794, 
and Professor Scott, who is always accurate, says that we 
have had forty such arbitrations since. If arbitration 
involves delegation of delegated constitutional power, then 
we have violated the Constitxition so many times that it 

14 



must be a very sorry thing. Some distinction is sought 
to be made between agreeing to arbitrate an issue in the 
future when it shall arise and arbitrating an issue that has 
already arisen. What distinction is there? What can 
there be? In either case we agree to arbitrate a differ- 
ence, the difference to occur in the future or the difference 
which has already occurred. The truth is, it is not a 
delegation of power to agree to create a court, and abide 
its judgment. The nation as a sovereign agrees to con- 
sent to the creation of a court and its judgment, just as a 
person may consent to an arbitration. The sovereign has 
as much power in that regard as a person. 

NoAv the second constitutional objection on the basis of 
the Constitution is that in the third clause, where it is 
agreed that the nations of the League not engaged in the 
controversy shall unite their forces, econcmic and military, 
to enforce submission, we bind ourselves to make war, and 
that as Congress alone has the povrer to declare war, v/e 
take away from Congress this power and agree to change 
the structure of our government. Well, the slightest 
analysis will show the utter lack of foundation for any such 
objection. The treaty-making power of the government is 
in the President and Senate, two-thirds of the Senate. 
When a treaty is made, it binrls the whole government, it 
binds the House of Representatives, it binds the Senate, it 
binds the President, it binds the people of the nation, in 
whose behalf and name it is made. When the obligations of 
that treaty are to be performed, then that part of the 
machinery of government that discharges such a function 
as is involved in the performance, is, under the Consti- 
tution, to act. This part of the machinery is bound in the 
sense that its honor ought to compel it to do the thing 
that the treaty-making power agreed for the government 

IS 



shovdd be done, but the government does not and can not 
do the thing until that part of the machinery acts. Con- 
gress is to declare war; therefore, when the treaty-making 
power has made a treaty involving the United States in 
the obligation to declare war, it is for Congress to declare 
war and exercise the constitutional function that it has tq 
declare war. It may, if it chooses; it has the power, it 
has the constitutional power, to break the obligation of 
the government and not do that which the government is 
in honor bound to do. It is like fore-ordination and free 
will ; it has the power, and may exercise it constitutionally, 
to say we will make no war, although that part of the 
government that had tho power to agree that we should, 
did so agree. 

Now how does that interfere with the normal operation of 
the machinery as provided by the Constitution? Well, if it 
does, we have been violating the Constitution right along. 
When we entered into that arrangement with Panama in 
respect to the zone and acquired dominion over that zone 
for the piupose of building the canal, what did we agree? 
We guaranteed the integrity of Panama. WTiat does that 
mean? It means that we bound ourselves by that treaty 
that if any nation attempted to take away any territory 
from Panama or to subvert her government, we would fight. 
Now who would arrange the fighting? Wouldn't it be Con- 
gress? Doesn't that bind Congress to make war? She has 
the right to violate the obligation if .she chooses. Does that 
make the treaty unconstitutional? We have guaranteed 
the integrity of Cuba, which means that no foreign nation 
can come in there and take any of her territory or subvert 
her government. Is that constitutional? It binds Con- 
gress to make war just as this does, and it does not do any 
more, and Congress may violate the plighted faith of the 

i6 



nation if it chooses, but it does not change the constitu- 
tional obHgation and power on t\}.e part of Congress to 
make war. That is all "constitutional"; it fills your 
mouth so full that you think that the objection must be 
formidable. 

Then, of course, there is that objection to force. I am 
not going to argue, I am not going into that question of 
pacifism. I think I could argue with them in (quietness and 
peace. I am certainly not disposed to call those who are 
pacificists names, because I want to convince them of their 
errors and my observ^ation is that it never helps you to con- 
vince a man when your major premise is that in his then 
state of mind he is a fool. Ordinarily with that major 
premise, he is inclined to stick to his denial of the correct- 
ness of the conclusion. The Society of Friends has always 
advocated non-resistance. They have not always been 
consistent in it, as the Connecticut people who took Con- 
necticut grants over into Pennsylvania and tried to live on 
the lands under those grants found out; they found that 
non-resistance did not work there. Nevertheless the 
Society of Friends has usually been consistent and I always 
differ with them with the utm.ost reluctance, because you 
can look back three hundred years and find many things 
advocated then which seemed far away from anything that 
was reasonable in the views of the ordinary common-sense 
individual in those days and see now how they have come 
to be regarded as axiomatic. 1 feel like opposing that par- 
ticular denomination, therefore, with very considerable re- 
luctance and great respect for their views; but nevertheless 
I do not think that we have reached the time when force, 
as an aid to moral impulse, can be dispensed with. 

The modem anarchist, if 1 understand it — I do not mean 
the gentleman who begins his argument with you by blow- 

17 



ins: you np — but I mean him who theoretically sustains the 
doctrine that if we could get rid of government entirely 
and all restraint and bring up children with the under- 
standing that each was to act on his own responsibility, 
his or her own responsibility, and was to have no restraint 
of any kind, that, when they became adults, they would 
know just exactly what they ought to do first and then 
they would do it — I sometimes think we have begun this 
practice with our children — still I do not think that human 
nature is so constituted that the theory will work; we 
still need a police force at home to enforce laws, and it 
seems to me that a police force, if we can arrange it with 
respect to nations, may be made most useful and that its 
existence and the threat of using it may make the use of 
force by one nation in controversies between nations 
much less frequent. 

Then there is the objection to the entangling alliances 
against the injunction of Washington, which we have here- 
tofore obser\'ed; still I agree this is a serious objection, one 
to be carefully considered. Of course when Washing- 
ton talked, he had in mind that ver\' annoying treaty he 
had made with France during the Revolutionary War, 
which of course helped us in our Revolution, but subse- 
quently involved us in some very uncomfortable obliga- 
tions to France in her war with Great Britain. He had in 
mind an alliance with one nation against another, perhaps. 
Tliis of course is different from that, in that it is hoped that 
it will embrace all the nations of the world, at least all the 
world. Nevertheless, I agree that it is a departure from the 
principle as he stated it, and we can onl\' justify it on the 
ground that our situation is very different from what it 
was when Washington spoke. He was then five times as 
far from Europe as we are to-day, if you can judge by the 

i8 



speed of transportation, and twenty-five times in matter 
of communication. He was twenty-five times as far from 
. Asia, if you can consider that Asia was any considerable 
quantity at all in our foreign relations at that time, as it 
is now. Now we are a hundred million people and reach 
from ocean to ocean; we have Alaska, a dominion in itself, 
purchased by Seward in 1867, a place where a base of 
operations could easily be made for an attack on the Pacific 
Coast. We have the Hawaiian Islands and we have the 
Philippines; that is, we have them up to date. 

I am not going to dwell on the Philippines; I cannot in 
this presence. I think it is in Our IVIutual Friend — my 
memory is sometimes defective — but my recollection is 
that there w^s a gentleman named Silas Wegg, wdio was. 
reading the "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" ta 
the golden dust man and his wife, Mr. and ]\Irs. Boffin, and 
he occasionally made a mistake in his reading and called it 
"The Decline and Fall of the Russian Empire," and Mr. 
Boffin, wiih the intention of clearing up his ignorance, in- 
quired what the distinction was between the Roman Em- 
pire and the Russian Empire, and ]\Ir. Wegg was a bit 
stumped vmtil some kind Providence helped him, and his 
eye hit on Mrs. Boffin and he said, "Mr. Bofhn, I cannot 
explain that distinction in ttie presence of Mrs. Boffin." I 
cannot tell you what I think about the present Philippine 
policy in the presence of the ladies. . . . We are there now ; 
it makes us an Asiatic power; they are under the eaves of 
Asia, and if we stay as long as we ought to stay to carry 
out the pledge we in effect made when we went in there, we 
shall continue to be an Asiatic power until a good many 
of us here are gone. 

Then we have the friction with Japan and China. We 
wish to keep the open door and it is closing a bit. Then we 

19 



have got the Panama Canal, an investment of four hundi'ed 
millions, to unite the eastern and the western seaboard, to 
double the force of our navy, it may be; that makes us al- 
most a South American power. Then we own Porto Rico, 
fifteen hundred miles out at sea from Florida. Then we do 
not own, but we have a relation to Cuba that is even more 
likely to involve us in trouble than if we did own it. We 
have guaranteed her integrity and we have reserved to our- 
selves the right to go in and suppress insurrection and we 
have had to do it once. Then we have Mexico; that is an 
international nuisance that is likely to entail, I am sorry to 
say, greater burdens on us than we would like. And then 
we have otu: relations to Europe. When they went into the 
war, we settled back, shocked, of course, but with a kind of 
feeling that at any rate we were so separated from the war 
that we cotild not be involved, but I think we have gotten 
over that feeling now in view of our recent experiences in 
ultimatums which show our proximity to war and the 
warlike things in Europe. 

l^ow the question which I want to put to you is whether, 
in view of the strained relations that we have had with 
Genr.any, for instance, in view of the questions that have 
arisen between us and England, in pursuing the indifferent 
course of a neutral, as I believe we have done, and yet 
coming so close to war as we have, we can say that we are 
any m.ore likely to be kept out of war by remaining a neutral 
and avoiding such an alliance as this we here propose than 
if we went in and availed ourselves and made ourselves 
part of the great power of allies in such an agreement to 
stop war and to prevent its involving such a disaster to 
human progress. 



30 



THE PROPOSAL FOR A LEAGUE TO 
ENFORCE PEACE— NEGATIVE 

WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN 

Before taking up the subject which I desire to dis- 
cuss, I am sure that my distinguished friend [Mr. Taft] 
will pardon me if I dwell for a moment upon the 
plans of the League to Enforce Peace, and I will say to 
you that, in dissenting from those who support those 
plans, I give myself more embarrassment than I give 
those who represent the views from which I dissent. I 
know the distinguished gentleman who is at the h6ad of 
this League too well to doubt for a moment that he de- 
sires to have every possible criticism candidly stated, for 
I know him well enough to know that he desires the 
triumph of that which is right much more earnestly than 
he desires the triumph of any particular thing in which 
he may believe. [Applause.] And I think that that can 
be said in general of those who assemble here, for this is 
rather a unique organization; it is composed of those who 
have no pecuniary interest in the subjects which they 
discuss, and therefore each one speaks in a disinterested 
way. While he proclaims what he believes, he is at the 
same time a seeker after truth. The names of those who 
stand sponsor for this League to Enforce Peace create a 
very strong presumption in its favor, but it seems to me, 
as I view it, that there are iour objections to the plan 
and that these objections are of such great weight and 

21 



importance that they deserve to be considered by those 
who have this plan in contemplation or who are inclined 
to support it. 

The first is that it involves us in entangling alliances 
with Europe, and that we, therefore, cannot adopt it 
without abandoning the advice of Washington which has 
been followed thus far and I believe will continue to be 
followed by the American people. I have not the slight- 
est thought that any argument that can be presented in 
behalf of any plan that connects us with the quarrels of 
Europe will ever bring to the support of that plan any- 
thing like a majority of the American people. 

Now, as I understand this plan, we are to agree with 
other nations of the world to enforce peace and to en- 
force it by compelling all of the contracting parties to 
submit all of their controversies for investigation before 
going to war. I need not tell you that the plan of in- 
vestigating all questions is one that I heartily approve. 
It is now more than ten years since I begaji to urge in 
this country and in other countries a plan which has 
finally been embodied in thirty treaties, which submits 
every question of dispute of every kind and character to 
investigation and gives a period of a year for that in- 
vestigation, during which time the contracting parties 
agree that there shall be no resort to force. I am com- 
mitted to the plan of investigatipn. The point I make is 
this, that, when we join with other nations to enforce that 
plan, we join with them in attempting to settle by force 
the disputes of the old world. While the chances of a resort 
to force may be very remote. I am not willing to speculate 
on a proposition about which we can know absolutely 
nothing; I am not willing that this nation shall put its 

22 



army and navy at the command of a council which we, 
cannot control and thus agree to let foreign nations decide 
when we shall go to war. Now, if I understand this 
plan, you cannot agree with other nations to enforce 
peace by compelling the submission of all questions to 
investigation before war, without lodging with some power 
somewhere the right to decide when that force shall be 
employed. We cannot hope to have a controlling in- 
fluence in that body; I assume that it would be impossible 
to secure any kind of an agreement which would leave 
us to decide when these nations would enforce a propo- 
sition. My first objection, therefore, is that it neces- 
sarily entangles us in the quarrels of Europe and that we 
would go, blindfolded, into an agreement, the extent and 
effect of which no human mind can know. 

The second is that if we join with Europe in the en- 
forcement of peace over there, we can hardly refuse to 
allow Europe to join in the enforcing of peace in the 
Western hemisphere. If I understand the sentiment of 
the American people, there is not the slightest thought 
in the American mind of surrendering the Monroe Doc- 
trine, or of inviting any foreign nation to assist us in 
maintaining peace in the Western hemisphere. [Ap- 
plause.] This is the second objection. 

The third is that our Constitution vests in Congress 
the right to declare war and that we cannot vest the 
power to declare war in a council controlled by European 
nations without changing our Constitution. The sug- 
gestion that we so amend our Constitution as to vest in 
a body, whose control is across the sea, the right to de- 
clare war would not be popular in the United States. If 
we are to change the Constitution from what it is now, 

23 



I am in favor of putting the declaring of war in the hands 
of the people, to be decided by a referendum vote of the 
American people. This is quite different from surren- 
dering, into the hands of a foreign body, the right to 
determine when this nation shall take up arms. 

The fourth objection that I see to this plan is funda- 
mental and cannot be changed by a suggestion that I 
shall make in a moment. The fourth objection is that 
when we tiun from moral suasion to force, we step down 
and not up. I prefer to have this nation a moral power 
in the world rather than a policeman. Therefore, whUe 
I have no doubt whatever of the high motives and of the 
laudable purpose of those who stand for the doctrines of 
the League, I cannot bring myself to believe that it is 
a step in advance. 

Now, three of the objections mentioned might be 
obviated if we divided the world into groups, the Amer- 
ican group being entrusted with the maintenance of peace 
in the Western hemisphere. I would be much more 
willing to join with the Republics of Central and South 
America in any plan that would compel the submission 
of all disputes in this hemisphere to investigation before 
war; I wovdd be much more willing to do that than to 
favor a plan that would bind us to enforce decisions 
made by nations across the ocean, or even obligate w^ to 
join European nations in compelling investigation before 
war. 

And in addition to all the other objections, and there 
are so many that I shall not take time to give them all — 
in addition to all other objections that may be made to 
this League, when it embraces European nations and puts 
them in a position where they can decide questions of 

24 



war for us, there is this consideration that I think will 
not be treated lightly by the American people. If we 
are in a group of American Republics, we are associated 
with people having our form of government, but the 
moment we cross the ocean, we tie ourselves to a theory 
of government from which our people dissented a century 
and a third ago. If I understand the heart of the 
American people, they still believe that there is an essen- 
tial difference between a monarchy and a republic. So 
long as the European monarchies vest in their executives 
the right to declare war, it seems to me that the American 
people can well refuse to tie themselves to these countries 
and become thus "unequally yoked together." 

As I said, if we are going to have any change in our 
Constitution, I want it to be a change in the direction of 
democracy and not a change in the direction of mon- 
archy. If I understand the spirit of our nation and the 
sentiment of our people, you will find that when this 
becomes a practical question and comes before them for 
adoption or rejection, they will consider very seriously 
before they will join this country to the countries with 
hereditary rulers and thus give to these rulers an in- 
fluence over us which we refuse to give to our own 
executives. 

Now I have presented, as briefly as I could, the ob- 
jections that I see to this plan to enforce peace, and I 
shall be very glad if it can be so modified as to make it 
consistent and harmonious with the ideas of the American 
people and the institutions of the United States, for these 
gentlemen do not surpass me in the desire to do whatever 
can be done to make war impossible. And now let me 
give the remainder of my time to two or three phases of 

25 



the subject under consideration. I say the subject 
under consideration, for I suppose that the subject is as 
broad as the subject is when it is described as "the state 
of the Union." 

We are here to consider the attitude of this nation and 
I ask you to bear with me for a moment while I speak of 
the nation's attitude on two or three phases of the subject 
now under consideration. First, as to whether we shall 
go into this war; there are very few people who say that 
we should. I believe they had a meeting in New York 
not long ago, and one in Boston, at which speakers said 
that it was our duty to go into this war. The virus has 
not yet been carried across the Allegheny Mountains; 
we have had no meetings in the west where anybody has 
suggested that we go into this war. My fear is that, 
following the diplomacy of the old world, we may do 
the things that will bring us into this war, even though 
we do not desire to enter it. You well remember that all 
the rulers who entered this war entered it protesting that 
they wanted peace, but they followed the precedents that 
lead to war. 

My contention is that the precedents of the past ha\'e 
broken down, that they have involved the world in a 
war without a parallel; that they have made a slaughter- 
house out of Europe, and that these precedents ought 
not to be followed in this country if they will tend to 
bring us into this war. And so, where I have had a 
chance to speak to the people — and I have been improving 
every opportunity for now some ten months — wherever 
I have had a chance to speak to the^people, I have pre- 
sented the alternatives which I think we can choose in- 
stead of going to war. 

26 



In the first place, if diplomacy fails, we have a peace 
plan. It was oflered to all the world. It has been em- 
bodied in thirty treaties with one billion three hundred 
million of the human race. We now have three-quarters 
of the globe connected with us by these treaties, and three 
nations, exercising authority over one hundred millions 
of people, that have not signed the treaties have formally 
endorsed the principle, although they have not yet joined in 
treaties with us. We have almost the entire civilized world 
bound to us either by treaties actually made or by agree- 
ment upon the principle which the treaty embodies, pro- 
viding that every dispute of every kind shall, before hos- 
tilities begin, be submitted to an international tribunal 
for investigation and report. Fotir of the belligerent 
nations have signed these treaties with us. Great Britain, 
France, Italy and Russia. Great Britain and France 
signed on the 15th of September, 191 4, a month. and a 
half after the war began,, and Russia signed on the ist 
of October, two months after the war began. Italy 
signed before the war commenced. Three belligerent 
nations, Germany, Austria and Belgitun, have endorsed 
the principle but have not yet signed treaties. Germany 
was the sixteenth nation to formally endorse the prin- 
ciple embodied in these treaties. My contention is this, 
that if this plan was good enough to offer to all the world 
— and we have never withdrawn the oiler — if it was good 
enough to be embodied in the treaties we have made, 
and good enough to be endorsed in principle by the other 
nations that have not yet signed treaties, it is good 
enough to use with any nation before we go to war with 
that nation. 

But, my friends, in an argument it is well to cover 

27 



every possible contingency, and this is so important a 
question that I desire to leave no point uncovered, and 
so I go a step further and say that if we use the treaty 
plan and it fails to bring a peaceful settlement, or if we 
fail to use the treaty plan and reach a time when we must 
decide either to go into this war or to postpone final 
settlement of the dispute until the war is over, if we are 
compelled to choose between these two alternatives, I 
believe it will be the part of wisdom to postpone final 
settlement of the dispute until after this war is over. In 
suggesting this, I am simply applying to international 
affairs a principle that is applied in our courts every 
day. Our courts postpone hearings in the interest of 
justice, and if, by postponing the final settlement of a 
dispute until this war is over, we can secure a settlement 
without war, I think it is worth postponing. The only 
difficulty we have had in regard to any dispute with 
either side has been the fear of the effect of the settle- 
ment on this war; when this war is over, that difficulty 
will be removed and I think the chances are many to 
one that we can reach a settlement without a resort to 
arms. 

But there is another contingency which should be con- 
sidered. Suppose it were impossible or were believed to 
be impossible to secure a settlement after the war without 
a war; suppose the question were simply this, that we 
must have a war to settle the dispute and that the only 
thing we had to decide was whether we would have it 
now, while this war is on, or after this war is over. If 
we were compelled to choose between those two alter- 
natives, I believe it would be the part of wisdom to have 
our war after this war is over. Why? In the ffrst place, 

28 



we would still have on our side the possibility of a peaceful 
settlement after the war was over. Second, we woiild 
be free to act as mediator and help to bring this war to 
a close before we entered our war; and, third, if we have 
to have a war, it will be our war with the single nation 
with which we have the dispute, and we can have some- 
thing to say about when to go into it and when to come 
out and the terms of the settlement; but if we go into 
this war, it is not our war, it is everybody's war; if we go 
into it, we cannot come out till the others do, and while 
there we must fight for the things they fight for, and God 
forbid that this nation shall ever entangle itself in the 
quarrels of the Old World or put an American army and 
an American navy at the command of a European mon- 
arch to be used in settling his quarrels with other European 
monarchs. The first point, therefore, that I ask you to 
consider is this, that we shall not go into this war. I 
shall not attempt to present all the reasons, I shall simply 
present three and those very briefly. 

The first is that we cannot go into this war without 
imposing a very heavy burden upon a generation yet un- 
born, aye, upon many generations. If we go into this 
war, we cannot go in in a stingy way or as a miserly 
nation. If it is manly to go in, it will be manly to play 
a man's part and be prodigal with men and with money. 
If we judge the possibilities in regard to otu* expenses by 
what has already occurred in Europe, we must know 
that we cannot possibly take part in this war without 
contracting an enormous war debt. In less than two 
years the countries now at war have added to the war 
debts of the world a sum about equal to all the war 
debts that have come down from all the wars of history 

29 



until this time. It is no slight matter to fasten upon the 
generations that are to follow us the burden of such a 
debt. Five hundred years from now children will be 
born into Europe with their necks under the yoke that 
this generation has placed upon them. Let us not imi- 
tate their folly. 

In the second place, no man can tell how many men 
it would cost us; it has already cost them 3,000,000 in 
killed and nearly ten million in wounded. If we go 
into it, what will be our quota? One hundred thousand 
men? It would be more likely to be half a million or 
a million. If I know the sentiment of the American 
people, they are not willing to make this sacrifice in 
either blood or money for any cause that has ariseij in 
our disputes with either side thus far. 

The third objection is, that we would forfeit an op- 
portunity that never came to any other nation before, 
since time began. We are the greatest of the neutral 
nations; we are the one to which the world is looking to 
act as mediator when the time for mediation comes. If 
we go into this war, no matter what the cause, no matter 
what the excuse, no matter what the pretext, we step 
down from that high position and turn over to some 
other nation this unprecedented opportunity. 

And more than that, we are next-of-kin to all the 
nations that are at war. They are blood of our blood, 
they are bone of our bone; not a soldier boy falls on any 
battlefield over yonder but what the wail of sorrow in 
his home finds an echo at some American fireside, and 
these people have a right to expect that we will remain 
the friend of all, and in God's good time play the part 
of friend. 

30 



Some nation must lift the world out of the black night 
of war into the light of that day when peace can be 
made enduring by being built on love and brotherhood, 
and I crave that honor for our nation; more glorious 
than any page of history that has yet been written will 
be that page that will record our claim to the promise 
made to the peace-makers. 

This is the day for which the ages have been waiting. 
For 1900 years the gospel of the Prince of Peace has' 
been making its majestic march around the world and 
the philosophy of the Sermon on the Mount has become 
more and more the rule of daily life. All that remains 
is that this moral code shall be lifted from the level of 
the individual and made real in the law of nations; and 
this, I believe, is the task that God in His providence has 
reserved for the American people. 

And now may I devote the remainder of my time 
to just one more thought? It is a thought upon which 
I would be glad to expand, but it would not be fair 
to those who are to follow me to trespass upon 
their time. My friends, this is a place where, if 
anywhere, we can and ought to speak heart to heart. 
Let me say just a word about the false philosophy, as 
I regard it, that some ask this country'- to adopt. We 
have in this country a propaganda for what they call 
preparedness. It ought not to be called preparedness; 
it is unfortunate that a word with such a distinguished 
lineage and such high character should be dragged down 
to so base a use as this word is. It does not accurately 
describe it, because there are two kinds of preparedness, 
and those who ask you to adopt one kind have no right 
to insist upon monopolizing the meaning of that word. 

31 



The question is how best to prepare against war. My 
objection to the plan which is suggested and described 
by that word preparedness, as it is used by the friends 
of large appropriations, is that it will not prevent war 
but will provoke war, and in proof of this I point to 
the fact that the war in Europe was preceded by a period 
of preparation such as the world never knew before. If 
preparedness would prevent war, there would be no war 
in Europe, for they had spent money lavishly preparing. 
One side prepared on land and the other side on sea. Why 
did the side that prepared on land not prepare on sea? 
Because it thought preparation on land more effective. 
And why did the side that prepared on sea not prepare 
on land? It had as much money to use for one as the 
other. Why did it not use it preparing on land? Be- 
cause it thought preparation on sea was more effective. 
Each thought it was prepared, and when the war began 
those best prepared went in first, after them others fol- 
lowed as they could prepare, and if we had been as well 
prepared as some now ask us to be, we would, I believe, 
be in the war to-day, shouting for blood as lustily as any 
of them. Now that is my view of it, and I understand 
that we are here to give expression to our own views, 
and not to other people's views. I know of no way of 
comparing views except for each one to give his own. 
If I tried to give yoiirs, none of you m"ght try to give 
mine, and then my view would not be presented at all. 
But if you present your view and I present mine, we have 
a chance to compare them. 

This false philosophy that has brought Europe into 
this war will, in my judgment, bring into war any nation 
that adopts it. Europe has built its hope of peace upon 

32 



a false foundation, upon the foundation of force and 
fear and terrorism; the only hope of peace that these 
European nations have had rested in the belief that 
each could terrorize the other into peace. 

It is a false philosophy; if you want to see how false it is 
try it on a neighborhood. The big questions between 
nations are settled by the very same rules that we apply to 
neighborhoods. I will show you what this philosophy is, 
and then you can judge whether it can be expected to bring 
anything else except war. 

Suppose nearby you have two farmers living side by 
side, good farmers, well-meaning farmers who wanted to 
be friends, and suppose they tried to maintain peace on the 
European plan, how would they go at it? One would go to 
the nearest town and buy the best gun he cotdd find, and 
then he would put a notice in the paper saying that he 
loved his neighbor and that he had no thought of trespass- 
ing upon his neighbor's rights; but that he was determined 
to defend his own rights and protect his honor at any cost, 
that he had secured the best gun in the market and that if 
his neighbor interfered with him, he would shopt him. 
Then suppose the neighbor went to town the next day 
and got him a better gun and, with the same frankness, 
consulted the newspaper and put in a similar notice ex- 
plaining that he loved peace as well as his neighbor did 
but that he was just as determined to defend his own rights 
and protect his honor and that he had a better gun than his 
neighbor and that, if his neighbor crossed his line, he would 
kill him. And suppose then the first man, when he read 
that notice, went to town and got two guns and advertised 
that fact in the paper, and the second man, when he read 
it, went to town and got three guns, and so on, each alter- 

33 



nately buying guns. What would be the result? Every 
undertaker in that vicinity would go out and become 
personally acquainted with the two men, because he would 
know there would be at least one funeral in that neighbor- 
hood. That is the European plan. One country gets a 
battleship and announces that it can blow any other battle- 
ship out of the water; then a rival nation gets a dread- 
naught that can sink the battleship; then the first nation 
^ gets a super-dreadnaught ; then they go to the dictionary 
and look for prefixes for the names of their battleships as 
they build them larger and larger; and they make guns 
larger and larger and they equip armies larger and larger, 
all the time talking about how much they love peace 
and all the . while boasting that they are ready for a 
fight. 

Go t ack to the time when they commenced to pass lav.-s 
against the carrying of concealed weapons and you can 
get all che material you want for a speech on preparedness, 
because the argtmients made in favor of carrying revolvers 
can be put into the speeches made today in favor of 
preparedness, without changing a word. Did you ever 
hear of a man who wanted to carry a revolver to be aggres- 
sive? No, it was just to protect his rights and defend his 
honor, especially his honor, but they found by experience 
that the man who carried a revolver generally carried with 
it a disposition to use it on slight provocation and a dis- 
position to provoke its use by others. For the promotion 
of peace, every state in this union has abolished prepared- 
ness on the part of individuals because it did not preserve 
peace. It provoked trouble, and unless we can convince 
ourselves there is a moral philosophy applicable to nations 
that is just the opposite of the moral philosophy applied to 

34 



individuals, we must conclude that, as the pistol-toting 
man is a menace to the peace of a community, so the 
pistol-toting nation is a menace to the peace of the 
world. 



35 



LIST OF PUBLICATIONS 

Nos. 1-83 (April, 1907. to December, 1914)- Including papers by Baron d'Estoumelles 
de Constant, George Trumbull Ladd, Elihu Root, Barrett Wendell, Charles E. Jefferson, 
Seth Low, William James, Andrew Carnegie, Pope Pius X, Heinrich Lammasch, Norman 
Angell, Charles W. Eliot, Sir Oliver Lodge, Lord Haldane and others. A list of titles and 
authors will be sent on application. 

83. Official Documents Bearing upon the European War. Series I. 

I. The Austro- Hungarian Note to Servia. 
ll. The Servian Reply. 

III. The British White Paper. 

IV. The German White Book. October, 1914. 

84. Additional Official Documents Bearing upon the European War. Series II. 

I. Speech of the Imperial Chancellor to Reichstag, August 4, 1914. 
II. Speech of the Prime Minister to House of Commons, August 6, 1914. 

III. The Russian Orange Book. 

IV. The Original Texts of the Austrian Note of July 23, 1914, and the Servian 

Reply of July 25, 1914, with annotations. November, 1914. 

8S- Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. III. 
I. The Neutrality of Belgium and Luxemburg. 
II. Address of the President of the Council to the French Senate, August 4, 1914. 

III. Official Japanese Documents. 

IV. AddreoS to the People by the Emperor of Germany. December, 1914. 

86. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. IV. 

I. Turkish Official Documents. November, 1914. 

II. Speech of the Imperial Chancellor to the Reichstag. December 2, 1914. 
III. The Belgian Gray Book. (July 24, August 29, 1914.) January, 1915. 

87. Documents Regarding the European War. Serie.^ No. V. 

The French Yellow Book, Translated and Prepared for Parliament by the British 
Government. February, 1915. 

88. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. V. 

The French Yellow Book, Translated and Prepared for Parliament by the British 
Government. March, 1915. 

89. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. VI. 

The Austrian Red Book, Official Translation Prepared by the Austrian Govern- 
ment. April, 1915- 

90. Documents Regai-ding the European War. Series No. VII. 

The Serbian Blue Book. May, 1913- 

36 



LIST OF PUBLICATIONS— Con/mueJ 

91. The Fundamental Causes of the World War, by Alfred H. Fried . June, ipiS- 

92. To the Citizens of the Belligerent States, by G. Heymans. July, 1915. 

93. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. VIII. 

Italy's Green Book, Translation approved by Royal Italian Embassy, Washing- 
ton, D. C. August, 1915. 

94. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. IX. 

Official Correspondence Between the United States and Germany. 
I. Declaration of London, August 6, 1914-^October 24, 1914. 
II. Contraband of War, September 4, 1914 — April 26, 1915- 

III. Restraints of Commerce, February 6, 1915 — September 7, 1913. 

IV. Caseof the William P. Frye, March3i,i9i5— July 30, 1915- September, 1915. 

93. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. X. 

Official Correspondence Between the United States and Great Britain. 
I. Declaration of London, August 6, 1914 — October 22, 1914. 
II. Contraband of War, August 5, 1914 — April 10, 1915. 

III. Restraints of Commerce, December 26, 1914 — July 31, 1915. 

IV. Case of the Wilhelmina, February 15, 1915 — April 8, 1915. October, 1915. 

96. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. XI. 

I. Secretary Bryan's Letter to Senator Stone Regarding Charges of Partiality 
Shown to Great Britain, January 20, 1915. 
II. The Austro- Hungarian Minister for Foreign Affairs to Ambassador Pen- 
field, June 29, I9I.1. 
III. The Secretary of State to Ambassador Penfield, August 12, 1915. 
November, 1915. 

97. Referendum on the Report of the Special Committee on Economic Results of the 

War and American Business. Reprinted by permission of the Chamber of 
Commerce of the United States. December, 1915. 

98. The Land Where Hatred Expires, by Albert L6on Gu6rard. January, 1916. 

99. America's Opinion of the World War, by Eduard Bernstein. Translated by 

John Mez. February, 1916. 

100. International Cooperation, by John Bassett Moore. The Outlook for Inter- 
national Law, by Elihu Root. March, 1916. 

loi. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. XII. 

Statement of Measures Adopted to Intercept the Sea-Borne Commerce of Ger- 
many. Presented to Both Houses of Parliament by Command of His Majesty, 
January, 1916. 
Great Britain's Measures Against German Trade. A Speech Delivered by the 
Rt. Hon. Sir E. Grey, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in the House of 
Commons, on the 26th of January, 1916. April, 19 16. 

37 



LIST OF PUBLICATIONS— Contfnuo/ 

102. Super-Resistance, by Harold C. Goddard. May, 1916. 

103. German White Book on Armed Merchantmen. June, 1916. 

104. Speech of Imperial German Chancellor before the Reichstag, on April s, 1916. 

July, 1916. 

105. Inter Anna Veritas, by William Allan Neilson. August, 19 16. 

106. The Proposal for a League to Enforce Peace. Affirmative — William Howard 

Taft; Negative — William Jennings Bryan. September, 1916. 

Special Bulletins: 

A Brief Outline of the Nature and Aims of Pacifism, by Alfred H. Fried. Trans- 
lated by John Mez. April, 1915. 

Internationalism. A list of Current Periodicals selected and annotated by Fred- 
erick C. Hicks. May, 1915. 

Preparedness as the Cartoonists See It, with introduction by Charles E. Jefferson. 
May, 1915- 

Spirit of Militarism and Non-Military Preparation for Defense, by John Lovejoy 
Elliott and R. Tait McKenzie. June, 1915. 

E.xisting Alliances and a League of Peace, by John Bates Clark. July, 1915. 

Is Commerce War? By Henry Raymond Mussey. January, 1916. 

Peace Literature of the War, by John Mez. January, 1916. 

Is There a Substitute for Force in International Relations? by Suh Hu. Prize 
essay. International Polity Club Conrpetition. awarded June, 1916. 

Toward an Enduring Peace. A Symposium of Peace Proposals and Programs, 
1914-IQ16, compiled by Randolph S Bourne, with an introduction by Franklin 
H. Giddings. 336 pages: for Special Distribution. October. 1916. 

Up to the limit of the editions printed, any one of the above will be sent postpaid upon 
receipt of a request addressed to the Secretary of the American Association for International 
Conciliation, PostoflSce Sub-station 84, New York, N. Y. 



3S 



COUNCIL OF DIRECTION OF THE 
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR INTERNATIONAL CONCILIATION 



Lyman Abbott, New York. 
Charles Francis Adams, Boston. 
Edwin A. Alderman, Charlottesville, 

Va. 
Robert Bacon, New York. 
Richard Bartholdt, St. Louis, Mo. 
George Blumenthal, New York. 
Clifton R. Breckenridge, Fort Smith, 

Arkansas. 
William J. Bryan, Lincoln, Nebraska. 
T. E. Burton, Cleveland, Ohio. 
Nicholas Murray Butler, New York. 
Andrew Carnegie, New York. 
Edward Cary, New York. 
Joseph H. Choate, New York. 
Richard H. Dana, Boston, Mass. 
Arthur L. Dasher, Macon, Ga. 
Horace E. Deuing, New York. 
Gano Dunn, New York. 
Charles W. Eliot, Cambridge, Mass. 
John W. Foster, Washington, D. C. 
Austen G. Fox, New York. 
Robert A. Franks, Orange, N. J. 
Robert Garrett, Baltimore, Md. 
Joseph P. Grace. New York, 
John Arthur Greene, New York. 
W. H. Hatten, London, Wis. 
William J. Holland, Pittsburgh, Pa. 
Hamilton Holt, New York. 
Da\td Starr Jordan, Stanford University, 

Cal. 
J. H. Kirkland, Nashville, Tenn. 
Adolph Lewisohn, New York. 



Seth Low, New York. 

Clarence H. Mackay, New York. 

Theodore Marburg, Baltimore, Md. 

Brander Matthews, New York. 

Silas McBee, New York. 

George B. McClellan, Princeton, N. J. 

Andrew J. Montague, Richmond, Va. 

W. W. Morrow, San Francisco, Cal. 

Levi P. Morton, New York. 

Stephen H. Olin, New York. 

Henry S. Pritchett, New York. 

A. V. V. Raymond, Buffalo, N. Y. 

Ira Remsen, Baltimore, Md. 

James Ford Rhodes, Boston, Mass. 

Elihu Root, Washington, D. C. 

J. G. Schurman, Ithaca, N. Y. 

James Brown Scott, Washington, D. C. 

Isaac N. Seligman, New York. 

Charles Hitchcock Sherrill, New York. 

F. J. V. Skiff, Chicago, III. 

William M. Sloane, New York. 

James Speyer, New York. 

Oscar S. Straus, New York. 

Mrs. Mary Wood Swift, Berkeley, Cal. 

George W. Taylor, Demopolis, Ala. 

O. H. Tittman, Washington, D. C. 

W. H. ToLMAN, New York. 

Charlemagne Tower, Philadelphia, Pa. 

Benjamin F. Trueblood, Newton Highlands, 

Mass. 
Edward Tuck, Paris, France. 
George E. Vincent, Minneapolis, Minn. 
William D. Wheelwright, Portland, Oek. 



39 



AMERICAN ASSOCIATION 
FOR INTERNATIONAL CONCILIATION 

Executive Committee 

Nicholas Murray Butler Stephen Henry Olin 

James Speyer Seth Low 

Jaues L. Slayden Robert A. Franks 

Joseph P. Grace George Blumenthal 

Gano Dunn 

Secretary 
Frederick P. Keppel 

Assistant Secretary for the Southern States 
Dunbar Rowland 

Director of Pan-American Division 
Peter H. Goldsmith 

Correspondents 

Alfred H. Fried, Vienna, Austria 

Fkancis W. Hirst, London, England 

T. Miyaoka, Tokyo, Japan 

Wilhelm Paszkowski, Berlin, Germany 

Organising Secretaries for South America 

Benjamin Garcia Victorica, American Legation, Buenos Aires 
A. G. Araujo Jorge, Foreign Office, Rio de Janeiro 
Juan Bautista de Lavalle, San Pedro, 88, Lima 



r/S(Lj 



International Conciliation 

Published monthly by the 
American Association for International Conciliation. 
Entered as second class matter at New York, N. Y., 
Postoffice, February 23, 1909, under act of July 16, 1894 



NATIONALITY AND BEYOND 

An Address delivered before the Commercial Club, San 
Francisco, California, August 8, 1916, 

By NICHOLAS MURRAY BUTLER 

DO WE WANT HALF THE HEMISPHERE? 
By BRANDER MATTHEWS 




OCTOBER. 191 
No. 107 



American Association for International Conciliation 

Sub-Station 84 (407 West 1 17th Street) 

New York Gly 



It is the aim of the Association for International Con- 
ciliation to awaken interest and to seek co-operation 
in the movement to promote international good will. 
This movement depends for its ultimate success upon 
increased international understanding, appreciation, 
and sjrmpathy. To this end, documents are printed 
and widely circulated, giving information as to the 
progress of the movement and as to matters connected 
therewith, in order that individual citizens, the news- 
paper press, and organizations of various kinds may 
have accurate information on these subjects readily 
available. 

It is the aim of the Association to avoid, as far as 
possible, contentious questions, and in particular 
questions relating to the domestic poHcy of any given 
nation. Attention is to be fixed rather upon those 
underlying principles of international law, international 
conduct, and international organization, which must 
be agreed upon and enforced by all nations if peaceful 
civilization is to continue and to be advanced. A list 
of publications will be found on pages 27 to 29. 



NATIONALITY AND BEYOND 

An Address delivered before the Commercial Club, 
San Francisco, California, August 8, 1916 

By NICHOLAS MURRAY BUTLER 

It is no small satisfaction to be able to stand for a few 
moments this afternoon in the presence of this great com- 
pany of busy men, in order to discuss with them, however 
briefly and imperfectly, a matter which ought to be up- 
permost in the minds of every one of us. 

Some weeks ago I was surprised and shocked to read 
in the public press the statement that with the causes 
and the outcome of the European War we Americans 
were not concerned. I am bound to assume that the 
words must have been used in some strange and unusual 
manner, for I find myself unable to believe that any in- 
telligent American, in high station or in low, could hold 
the view which these words, interpreted literally, would 
appear to express. I should as soon expect one to say 
that we Americans were not interested in the revival of 
learning, or in the causes or outcome of the French 
Revolution, or in the invention of printing, or in the 
harnessing of science to industry, or in any one of the 
great, significant events in the history of free men. 



For, Mr. President, unless I am wholly mistaken in the 
significance of these years through which we are passing, 
we are living in one of the great epoch-marking crises of 
the history of the world. We are standing at one of the 
watersheds from the heights of which streams of tendency 
and of influence will flow for generations, perhaps for 
centuries to come, now this way and now that. 

What we are witnessing is not an ordinary international 
war. We are not spectators of a contest between Guate- 
mala and Honduras over a boundary; we are standing 
before a struggle so stupendous, involving such incalcu- 
lable sums of human treasure, that all the great contests 
with which history is strewn fade into insignificance 
before it. This contest is not between savage and bar- 
barous and untutored and backward peoples. It is not 
a strong barbarian who is emerging from the jungle to 
extend his reach over the less powerful. This war is a 
clash between ideals. It is a controversy over ideals 
and national purposes, and it takes rank with the most 
magnificent events in all history; and I use the word 
"magnificent" in its literal sense of great-making, a 
great making over of issues and tendencies. 

We are witnessing the nemesis of the doctrine of 
nationality as an end in itself. We are standing at the 
bloody grave of an ideal that is a thousand years old, 
one that has made the history of Europe since the fall 
of the Roman Empire. And we are witnessing the birth 
of a new ideal, an ideal of Nationality with new human 

4 



significance, new human service and new human helpful- 
ness, — an ideal of Nationality higher than mere self- 
aggrandizement, or economic wealth, or miHtary power. 
This is an ideal which calls to the heart and to the mind 
of every American, and stirs his soul with the hope and 
the desire that his nation may participate in the upbuild- 
ing of a new conception of national purpose that shall 
call upon us to see something in a nation that is beyond 
population and wealth and trade and influence, and that, 
whether the nation be great or whether it be small, shall 
give it an honorable place in the great structure which 
is civilization. 

Just so long as every nation is regarded as an end in 
itself, just so long will the world be faced with the 
possibility of a recurrence of this soul-stirring tragedy. 
Just so long will the time come, at more or less frequent 
intervals, when national ambition, national zeal, national 
selfishness even, will find themselves struggling for new 
and forceful expression, for new and greater extension of 
influence, for new accomplishment and new grandeur. 

I take it that the dream of one world empire has passed 
away forever. It was a dream that came to the ancient 
Persians; it was a dream that sent Alexander the Great 
with his troops out over the deserts of Asia ; it was a 
dream that stirred the Roman conquerors ; it was a dream 
that gave Charlemagne his name; it was a dream that 
showed us the magnificent spectacle of Napoleon trying to 
turn back the hands of the clock of progress only a 



century ago. That dream I take it has passed forever, 
and we have now to deal not with the conception of a 
world-empire, but with the conception of clashing, con- 
flicting, mutually antagonistic nationalities. International 
war at intervals is the necessary accompaniment of that 
stage of national politics. But, gentlemen, magnificent 
as was the diplomacy of Cavour, of Bismarck, of Palmer- 
ston, and of Disraeli, that diplomacy and that ideal of 
nationality which it pursued, have passed away forever. 
We are now coming to that state of international policy 
where whether a nation be democratic or monarchical, 
informed public opinion matters mightily, and little by 
little is becoming the responsible controller of policy. 
An instructed and conscientious public opinion is reach- 
ing out to take the control of international policy out 
of the hands of monarchs and their irresponsible min- 
isters, and to put that control in the hands of representa- 
tive ministers of government who are responsible to their 
several peoples and who will no longer wage wars for 
personal, dynastic or merely individual aims. As that 
democratizing of international relations, of foreign policy, 
takes place, the ground will be plowed and harrowed and 
seeded and prepared for the crop of a new ideal. This 
is the ideal of a great community of nations each stand- 
ing, as international law says it shall stand, as the equal 
of every other, whether great or small, powerful or 
weak, engaged in the common co-operative task of ad- 
vancing the world's civilization, of extending its commerce 

6 



and trade, of developing its science, its art, and its litera- 
ture ; all aiming to increase the standards of comfort, 
and to lift the whole great mass of mankind to new and 
higher planes of existence, of occupation and of enjoy- 
ment. In that co-operative family of nations whose 
institutions are now in the making, there will be a place 
for every people, for every race, and for every language, 
and there will be a place for us. The compact of the 
Pilgrim Fathers on the Mayflower, the Declaration of 
Independence, the Constitution, the Gettysburg Address, 
and Lincoln's Second Inaugural, are all one great series 
of steps in the development of our national purpose and 
of our international position and influence. 

George Washington counseled this nation to beware 
of entangling alliances that would carry us into the mar- 
tial conflicts of Europe. We have wisely maintained that 
policy from his day to our own ; but nothing was farther 
from his thought than to counsel us against participation 
with every other nation in the solution of the great politi- 
cal problems common to all nations. We know, because 
their very names recall the knowledge to our minds, what 
the great nations of the ancient world and of modern 
times meant and still mean. We know what Italy means, 
what Germany means, what France means, what Holland 
means, what Great Britain means. We see with the eye 
of imagination their accomplishments, their service, and 
their great leaders of human influence and of action for 
centuries past. The question that now presses heavily 

7 



upon our American people is, what shall we make America 
to be? Shall America come to be merely the symbol for 
a busy hive of industrious bees, or a symbol for a great 
hill of intelligent ants? Shall it mean only a nation ab- 
sorbed in daily toil, in accumulation, in individual satis- 
faction, or shall it mean a nation so intelligent as to its 
purposes, so secure in its grasp upon its ideals and so 
devoted to them, that it will not rest until it has carried 
all round this world an American message that will raise 
and help and succor the stricken and conflicting family of 
peoples? Shall we keep to ourselves the great funda- 
mental American accomplishments that have in them 
lessons for the whole world, or shall we use our influence 
to teach to others those accomplishments and to spread 
them abroad? 

I mean, first, our literally stupendous achievement in 
federation. We have shown for the first time in history 
on a large scale, that there may be flexibility in govern- 
ment combined with a single unit of ultimate control. 
We have shown how we can retain personal liberty and 
local self-government while building up a strong, power- 
ful, united nation. Believe me, the world outside of the 
United States is waiting to profit by that experience. If 
there can be a common unity between Maine and Cali- 
fornia, Washington and Florida, uniting local self- 
government with membership in a great federated nation, 
why is not some part of that principle and why is not 
some part of that experience to be made ready for use 



and application by Great Britain, and Italy, and France, 
and Hungary, and Russia and the rest? 

Then, so many human conflicts arise out of differences 
of language, differences of religion, differences of insti- 
tutional life, and so often the attempt has been made to 
suppress and to oppress the weak by the stronger. Men 
and women are told that they may not worship according 
to their faith ; that their children may not be educated in 
schools where the vernacular is taught; and that there 
must be various differences between races and creeds and 
languages and types. Have we not proved to a watching 
world that the cure for that form of conflict is Liberty? 
Have we not shown that freedom of religion, freedom of 
education, equality of race and of language, letting all 
work out their several conflicts and controversies as they 
please subject only to the law, is the best policy? Have 
we not shown that out of these different elements, a 
strong united nation can be built? And are we not 
ready and anxious to teach that to those who would still 
try to unify by suppression and by persecution ? 

Are we not ready as Americans first to set in order our 
own house, first to make sure that we ourselves are living 
at home in accordance with our ideals, with our best 
purposes, and are learning the lessons of our own experi- 
ence? And then, shall we not be ready to say to Europe, 
to Asia and to Africa, and to our sister republics to the 
South, that we feel our sense of international obligation? 
We have gained some information ; we have proved some 

9 



things. This information and this experience we ofifer 
them. We offer it in persuasiveness, in friendship and 
in kindness. We offer this as our contribution to the 
great temple of civiHzation that we all would join to 
build. 

What a day it will be, my fellow Americans, when we 
can take our Washington, our Jefferson, our Hamilton, 
our Marshall, our Webster, and our Lincoln out of the 
restricted class of merely American voices and American 
figures and American heroes, and give them to the world, 
to take their first place by the side of the great states- 
men, the great artists, the great poets, the great seers of 
all time, as our contribution to a new civilization in which 
every nation shall find its place ! Understanding this, let 
us press forward to a single goal for all men, the goal 
described and written in our own American Declaration 
of Independence. 

That, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, is the goal that 
lies beyond Nationality conceived as an end in itself. 



zo 



DO WE WANT HALF THE HEMISPHERE? 

BY BRANDER MATTHEWS 

When any inquirer into the remoter causes of the great 
, war now raging siirveys the history of the nineteenth 
century, he cannot fail to see four facts of indisputable 
importance. The first of these is the constant extension 
of the boundaries of the Russian Empire, which have 
been pushed forward year after year to the east and the 
south, with a momentum as irresistible as that of a steam- 
roller. The second is the continuous expansion of the 
British Empire on all the shores of all the seven seas, ' 
and more particularly in Asia and in Africa. The third 
is the corresponding expansion of the United States, at 
first by the annexing of border territories on the Missis- 
sippi, on the Gulf of Mexico and on the Pacific, and 
more recently by the acquisition of possessions not im- 
mediately adjacent on the original thirteen states and 
in fact as remote as Alaska, Hawaii, the Philippines and 
the Canal Zone — an expansion accompanied by an 
equally unprecedented growth of population due to the 
inpouring of immigrants from all the nations of Etirope. 
And the fourth is the establishment and the solidification 
of the German Empire with its masterful internal organ- 
ization but with no corresponding external acquisition of 

II 



colonial possessions to be filled up in due season by the 
surplus of her teeming population. 

The most obvious explanation of the failure of Germany 
to acquire outlying possessions to be administered for 
her own benefit is to be found in the fact that Germany 
did not achieve her unity imtil toward the end of the 
nineteenth century, when few waste places of the earth 
were left for her to scramble for. It was only natural 
that Germany, proud of her steadil}'' increasing strength, 
should chafe against her inability to do in her turn what 
the older empires, British and Russian, had been enabled 
to do simply because they had been bom earlier than 
the German Empire. Nor was it unnatural that she 
should resent her helpless position and even that she 
should persuade herself that her powerlessness to possess 
herself of territory in different parts of the globe was the 
direct result of a determined effort on the part of the 
older empires to shut her out, to deny her an equal chance 
and an equal share, and to refuse her "a place in the sun." 

At the head of the German Empire stood Prussia, 
dominating the smaller kingdoms and principalities, and 
imposing upon them Prussian practices, Prussian theories 
and Prussian ideals. Now Prussia had made itself power- 
ful mainly by its military prowess; it had expanded by 
conquest. It had taken Silesia by the sword; and by 
the sword also had it seized its share of Poland. This 
was in the eighteenth century; and in the nineteenth 
century Prussia had annexed Schleswig-Holstein as the 

12 



spoil of one war, Hanover, Nassau, Hesse and Frankfort 
as the spoil of another war, and had brought Alsace- 
Lorraine into the Empire as the spoil of a third. It is 
true that in taking Alsace-Lorraine Germany was only 
recovering German territory which had been conquered 
by Louis XIV nearly two centuries earlier, and therefore 
its enforced retrocession from France seemed to most 
Germans only a proper redemption of lands which were 
indisputably German. Probably most Germans were 
painfully surprised and sadly disappointed to discover 
that the Alsatians and the Lorrainers did not want to 
become Germans, that they thought of themselves as 
French, and that they greatly preferred to remain French. 
This surprised disappointment was due to a failure to 
perceive that conditions had changed. When Louis XIV 
had conquered Alsace-Lorraine there was no united Ger- 
many to feel despoiled; the Holy Roman Empire of the 
German peoples was in fact what Mettemich was later 
to call Italy — ''only a geographical expression." The 
Alsatians and the Lorrainers had taken part in the French 
revolution, which had freed them from the rigors of 
feudalism; they had fought in the revolutionary armies, 
and they were proud of their share in the glories of the 
Napoleonic period. The people of P'rance understood 
this and felt that the Alsatians and the Lorrainers were 
as French in spirit as were the Normans and the Bretons 
and the Gascons. The shrewd Bismarck saw this clearly. 
He questioned the policy of wresting these provinces from 

13 



France, knowing that it would leave an ever-bleeding 
wound and that it might forever prevent a healthy friend- 
ship between the despoiled French Republic and the new 
German Empire. He opposed the annexation of any 
French-speaking districts, and in particular, that of Metz. 
Bismarck yielded finally to the purely military argiiments 
of Moltke; but the wisdom of his misgivings has been 
conclusively established by the course of events. If 
Prussia had not insisted upon the surrender of Alsace- 
Lorraine in 187 1, it is highly probable that France would 
never have felt herself forced into alliance with Russia 
and that Germany would not have thought it necessary 
to invade Belgium to attack France in 19 14. 

As Prussia owed its expansion to a persistent policy of 
conquest, it was natural enough for the Germans to believe 
that the long-continued expansion of other empires was 
also due to definite design, steadily held and resolutely 
carried out year after year. But a disinterested examina- 
tion of the facts shows that there is little or no basis for 
this belief, except possibly in the case of Russia. It may 
be that Peter the Great had a prophetic vision of a mighty 
empire extending from the Baltic to the Pacific; but even 
his imagination could not have foreseen the inexorable 
advance of his domains, as these extended further and 
fiirther into Asia. And it must always be remembered 
that Russia, on at least one occasion, was willing to part 
with a possession, when it sold Alaska to the United 
States. 

14 



But no Peter the Great predicted and proclaimed the 
equally marvellous expansion of the two English-speak- 
ing commonwealths. Neither in Great Britain nor in 
the United States has this expansion been the result of 
any plan definitely declared and logically executed. 
Rather has it been the unforeseen consequence of an un- 
expected series of accidents, the inevitable working of 
manifest destiny. The British Empire is like the Roman 
Empire in many of its aspects; and in no aspects are they 
more obviously alike than in their casual and piecemeal 
extension, decade after decade, century after century. 
This extension was never intended or projected or guided 
by principle; it simply happened, by force of circum- 
stances, unforeseen even a few years before they began to 
exert their pressure. As a wise man once said, "the 
British Empire was built in fits of absent-mindedness." 

Bismarck, the only German in the nineteenth century 
who had the imagination and the insight of a great 
statesman, with a profound understanding of international 
relations, did not conceal his contempt for the fickle 
vacillation of British statesmanship, devoid of any fixity 
of purpose and pursuing a hand-to-mouth policy of 
temporizing opportunism which seemed to him inherent 
in the . instability of democracy. In his eyes British 
politics appeared pitiably parochial and only occasionally 
imperial. And no one who has paid attention to the 
history of Europe could ever believe that any group of 
British political leaders at the time of the Crimean War, 

15 



which England fought in defence of Turkey, could possibly 
be looking forward to the British occupation of Egypt, 
which was to happen only thirty years later. And if 
England had beeil so steadfast in acquisition as she is 
often accused of being, she would never have parted with 
Heligoland to Germany in the nineteenth century, and she 
would never have been on the verge of returning Canada 
to France in the eighteenth, — a fatal surrender which was 
possibly prevented only in consequence of the energetic 
protests of Benjamin Franklin. It is true that England 
took Canada by conquest, as she has taken many another 
of her possessions; but these possessions, when they are 
peopled by Europeans, have been so justly and so judi- 
ciously administered, and they have been so swiftly ad- 
mitted to complete self-government (at least in local 
affairs), that their inhabitants are not only contented but 
loyal. Here again we can perceive a striking likeness 
between the generous government of the British and the 
beneficent rule of the Romans in the more settled period 
of the Empire. Just as the men of the remoter colonies of 
Rome were voluntarily enrolled in the legions, so the 
French-Canadians and the Dutch-Africanders are now 
enlisted under the British colors. 

Happy-go-lucky as has been the expansion of the British 
Empire, it has not been more unexpected and more 
accidental, less premeditated and less foreseen, than the 
corresponding increase in the domain of the United 
•States. Our extension has been parallel to that of the 

i6 



British Empire and it has been' equally fortuitous, but 
with this emphatic difference, that it has not been directly 
brought about by conquest. With the doubtful exception 
of Porto Rico, there is scarcely a square mile of all the 
millions of miles over which the Stars and Stripes now float 
that was originally won by the sword and continuously 
held by arms. Texas revolted from Mexico, proclaimed 
its independence, applied for admission to the United 
States and was admitted. In like manner Hawaii came 
under our flag by the free choice of its inhabitants. And 
all the rest of our territory, beyond that in our possession 
when the constitution was adopted in 1789, was bought 
and paid for. We have never rectified oiu* frontiers by 
forcible annexation We purchased Louisiana from 
France in 1803 ; we purchased Florida from Spain in 18 19; 
and we purchased Alaska from Russia in 1867. At the 
close of the war with Mexico in 1848, we purchased Cali- 
fornia and what are now its sister states on the Pacific — 
altho it is only honest to admit that this cession was con- 
sented to under duress. And at the close of the war with 
Spain in 1898, we kept Porto Rico, which we had captiu-ed, 
and we paid a price for the Philippines, which the Spaniards 
were not sorry to part with — if we may credit the report 
that the islands would have been sold to Germany in 
case we had not insisted on buying them ourselves. And 
then, finally, in 1904, we purchased the Canal Zone from 
Panama — altho it must be admitted that we were very 

17 



prompt in recognizing the independence of the revolting 
state. 

This is a fairly clean record, in that we have taken little 
or nothing by forcible annexation. What we have acquired 
since we became a nation, we have paid for in cash. • Otir 
title to our possessions is clear, and it is not stained by 
breach of faith or by blood. We have every reason to be 
proud of our record, which is wholly unlike that of any of 
the other expanding empires, and which the peoples of all 
of these empires must respect. And the cleanness of this 
record is still further emphasized by our withdrawal from 
Cuba, which we had promised not to take, which most 
Etiropean nations expected us to take, and which we did 
not take in spite of the fact that we had to be invited to 
return a second time to set its affairs in order. 

These successive accretions of our domain were at first 
only the additions of adjacent territory, Florida and 
Louisiana, Texas and California, then sparsely populated 
and necessary to our own internal development. Yet 
they were not the result of any predetermined plan of 
expansion, and they all of them came about more or less 
unexpectedly. What is more and what shows the abiding 
attitude of a large part of our population, is the significant 
fact that every one of these increases of territory was 
bitterly opposed by an influential section of the American 
public. The Federalists, for example, were loud and fierce 
in their denunciation of Jefferson for the Louisiana pur- 
chase, which, indeed, is to be credited rather to Living- 

i8 



ston than to Jefferson himself. In the very boyish satire, 
the *' Embargo" written by William Cullen Bryant when 
he was only thirteen and published in 1808, we can re- 
capture the echo of the contemptuous hatred which his 
political opponents then felt for the author of the Declara- 
tion of Independence: — 

"And thou, the scorn of every patriot's name, 
Thy country's ruin and thy council's shame! 
Poor servile thing! derision of the brave! 
Who erst from Tarleton fled to Carter's Cave; 
Thou, who when menaced by perfidious Gaul, 
Didst prostrate to her whisker 'd minion fall; 
And when our cash her empty bags supplied 
Didst meanly strive the foul disgrace to hide." 

Forty years later the hostility to the admission of 
Texas and to the purchase of California was almost as 
intense. The frequent proposals made before the Civil 
War for the ptirchase of Cuba never succeeded in winning 
poptilar approval; and even after the Civil War, when 
President Grant negotiated the annexation of Santo 
Domingo, in 1870, the treaty failed of ratification. And 
it is within the memory of us all that the opposition to 
the retention of the Philippines was equally bitter and 
that it has been even more persistent. And here, plainly 
it had far more justification. It was one thing to round 
out our domain by the inclusion of contiguous and thinly 
peopled territory and by taking in Florida and Louisiana, 
Texas and California, and it was quite another thing to 
acquire a group of islands separated from us by a thousand 
leagues of "unplumbed, salt, estranging sea." 

19 



In Louisiana and in California we made ourselves at 
home almost immediately; we moved into our new lands 
at once; and we peopled them with men of our own stock. 
But in the Philippines we can never be at home, and we 
cannot people them. We may continue to possess these 
islands, and to rule their inhabitants, but we must do it 
always as aliens, even if we refrain from rapacious exploita- 
tion and even if we seek to govern solely for the good of 
the natives. We got into the islands by the fortune of 
war and we could not in honor turn over the Filipinos, 
who had aided us, to the Spaniards, whom we had ousted, 
or to the Germans who might wish to replace the Spaniards. 
Probably to this day a very large portion of the American 
people feel ill at ease over our ownership of the Philippines; 
they regret it ; they wish that we were well out of it ; and 
yet they do not see how we can honorably withdraw, sur- 
rendering our trusteeship and subjecting the islands to the 
internecine disorders which would speedily and inevitably 
follow the hauling down of our flag. 

The British Empire is made up of the United Kingdom 
and Ireland, of self-governing Dominions beyond the 
seas, of crown colonies, and of dependencies of one kind 
or another; and the British are now trained, by tradition 
and by dearly bought experience, in the art of governing 
races of another color. We have not this experience or 
this tradition; we have no adequate machinery for the 
purpose — a purpose which we cannot help feeling to be 
foreign to the spirit of our institutions; and we have no 

20 



settled policy of remote acquisition inherited and con- 
secrated by time. Perhaps these things we may come 
to have in the years before us; and for the moment all we 
can do is to do our best for the Filipinos. We can set them 
the example of firm and yet liberal rule. We can try to 
inoculate them with the antitoxin of freedom within the 
law, and thereby to render them immune against the 
alternating fever of anarchy and autocracy. 

We must never allow ourselves to forget that every- 
where and always men dislike being governed except by 
men of their own race and of their own choice, tacit or 
expressed. All men detest the rule of the alien, no 
matter how richly endowed with good intentions the 
foreign governors may believe themselves to be. It is 
wholesome for us Americans to be reminded that the 
British are not so popular as they might be with the 
natives of India and of Egypt. Nor have we reason to 
hope that we shall ever be any more popular with the 
natives of the Philippines. In holding the Filipinos in 
tutelage we are in a false position; and it will take all 
our wisdom to find a way out, fair to the islanders them- 
selves and honorable for us. So long as we believe in 
the Declaration of Independence, so long as we are will- 
ing to be guided by the Farewell Address of Washington 
and the Second Inaugural of Lincoln, we shall find our- 
selves in a false position if we persist in ruling a distant 
and an alien people. 

When all is said the fact remains that the territory of 

21 



the United States has immensely increased since the be- 
ginning of the nineteenth century and that the area of 
the British Empire has been mightily expanded during 
the same period — whereas the more recently founded 
German Empire has had to be satisfied with the snapping 
up of a few unconsidered trifles, far inferior in value. It 
is no wonder that there are many Germans who resent 
this and who ascribe the exclusion to the underhand 
intrigues of rival peoples. They see that the Monroe 
Doctrine debars them from acquiring territory in South 
America, where there are already tens of thousands of 
Germans; and they see also that the British and the 
Russians recently out-maneuvered them in what seems 
to amount almost to a partition of Persia. Yet an 
American may wonder whether the German desire for 
colonies is not largely imitative and whether it is in accord 
with the best interests of the Germans themselves. Ger- 
many has now no surplus population. In consequence of 
its soaring industrial development, emigration has almost 
ceased, and in 1913 half a million laborers had to be im- 
ported to gather the German harvests. 

Moreover, it may be suggested that the German in- 
sistence on rigid organization is a hindrance to effective 
colonization. What is needed in a new country is free- 
dom of individual initiative, liberty to turn around 
swiftly to meet novel conditions and little more adminis- 
tration than is requisite for the maintenance of peace 
and order. It is significant that the Germans themselves 

22 



do not flock into the existing German colonies and that 
the German settlers in Brazil have never been heard to 
express any desire to be incorporated in the German 
Empire. Once only in modem history has a bureau- 
cratic colonial system been tried on a large scale and for 
a long time — and in the final trial it was found wanting. 
The story of its foredoomed failure is set forth in the 
series of volumes in which Parkman described the struggle 
between France and England for the possession of North 
America, a contest between the free individualism of the 
Anglo-Saxon stock and the bureaucratic restriction of 
the old regime in France. It was not Louis Napoleon 
that the Germans were fighting in 1870 — so Bismarck 
told Jules Favre; it was Louis XIV. Yet, forty years 
later we find that Germany has centralized authority 
until its government is not altogether luilike the militant 
autocracy of Louis XIV; and it has also adopted his 
bureaucratic methods of colonial administration. 

There is a warning here for us, and there is a little 
danger that we shall not heed it. We have not the 
political machinery for niling alien races; and to attempt 
to rule them is not in accord with our political ideals, 
which compel us to base our form of government on the 
consent of the governed. So long as the people of any 
community are fitted for self-government by descent or 
by long training, we can make them welcome, as we 
should gladly receive the Canadians if they wished to 
join us and if the British were willing to release them 

23 



from their allegiance to the crown. To admit the Cana- 
dians upon an equal footing with ourselves would put 
very little strain upon our political fabric. But we are 
not likely ever to be willing to confer full citizenship 
upon the Mexicans, if they were to clamor at our doors 
for admission into the Union. That they should ever 
so clamor is most improbable; but it is even more im- 
probable that we should yield to their appeal. The 
Mexican peon is at present as unfit or as ill-prepared for 
American citizenship as the Filipino. And it is for the 
Mexicans, as it is for the Cubans, to work out their own 
political salvation as best they can. Quite possibly it 
would be better for the Mexicans if we controlled Mexico; 
but it would certainly be worse for us. And in matters 
of so much importance we have a right to be selfish and 
to refuse to endanger our own political ideals for the sake 
of strangers without the gates, peoples toward whom we 
are under no immediate obligation. 

Furthermore, if the opinions expressed in this paper 
are those of a majority of the citizens of the United 
States, if it is a fact that we have no desire to go on in- 
creasing our possessions, either by annexing territory 
adjoining our borders or by acquiring distant colonies, 
if we really shrink from rivalry with the European em- 
pires in the game of greedily grabbing alien lands — ^then 
it would be wise for us to let the whole world know this 
so plainly that there would be no doubt about our in- 
tentions. The economic competition of the leading 

24 



nations is not likely to be relaxed in the immediate 
future — in fact, it will probably be furiously intensified; 
and economic rivalry is ever an exciting cause of inter- 
national jealousy and international suspicion. It is not 
enough that we should be resolved to keep our hands 
clean, as we have done in Cuba; it is needful also that 
we should at least try to make rival and jealous and 
suspicious peoples believe that our hearts are pure and 
devoid of vain desire to despoil any state weaker than 
we are. 

We can find a useful model for future action in the Piatt 
Amendment, whereby at the outbreak of the war with 
Spain we solemnly pledged our word not to make any 
profit out of our disinterested intervention in behalf of 
Cuba. We need to remember that Latin-America, led 
by Argentine, Brazil and Chile, is inclined to resent our 
recent extension of the Monroe Doctrine and to look 
upon us as a big brother, not altogether unwilling to 
bully his juniors, as big brothers have been known to 
do. We shall have to exercise the same tact toward 
South America that we have exercised toward British 
America. Three thousand miles of unfortified frontier, 
inland seas without naval vessels, and a hundred years 
of peace ought to be acceptable testimony that we can 
be good neighbors — just as the repeal of the exemption 
of American tonnage from the paying of tolls in the 
Panama Canal is evidence that we desire to do unto all 
men that which we believe to be right. 

25 



These are things of which we have reason to be proud. 
Yet they are only Uttle things to set down against rivalry 
and jealousy and suspicion. They may be enough* to 
make us more keenly conscious of our own rectitude of 
purpose; but they are not enough to make other peoples 
conscious of this. Perhaps it is hopeless to believe that 
we can ever persuade other peoples to see us as we see 
ourselves, and yet the attempt is worth making. The 
better the several nations know each other, the less likely 
are they to be hostile; and we owe it to ourselves to state 
our intentions so clearly and so emphatically that any 
misunderstanding will be willful. No nation really knows 
itself any more than any man can really know himself, 
and yet if we want to understand other men or other 
nations we had better begin by trying to find out what 
they believe themselves to be. 



26 



i 



LIST OF PUBLICATIONS 

Nos. i-8s (April, 1907, to December, 19 14). Including papers by Baron d'Estournelles 
de Constant, George Trumbull Ladd, Elihu Root, Barrett Wendell, Charles E. Jefferson, 
Seth Low, William James, Andrew Carnegie, Pope Pius X, Heinrich Lammasch, Norman 
Angell, Charles W. Eliot, Sir Oliver Lodge, Lord Haldane and others. A list of titles and 
authors will be sent on application. 

83. Official Documents Bearing upon the European War. Series I. 

I. The Austro- Hungarian Note to Servia. 
II. The Servian Reply. 

III. The British White Paper. 

IV. The German White Book. October, 1914. 

84. Additional Official Documents Bearing upon the European War. Series II. 

I. Speech of the Imperial Chancellor to Reichstag, August 4, 1914. 

II. Speech of the Prime Minister to House of Commons, August 6, 1914. 

III. The Russian Orange Book. 

IV. The Original Texts of the Austrian Note of July 23, 1914, and the Servian 

Reply of July 25, 19 14, with annotations. November, 19 14. 

85. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. III. 

I. The Neutrality of Belgium and Luxemburg. 
II. Address of the President of the Council to the French Senate, August 4, 1914. 

III. Official Japanese Documents. 

IV. Address to the People by the Emperor of Germany. December, 1914. 

86. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. IV. 

I. Turkish Official Documents. November, 1914. 
II. Speech of the Imperial Chancellor to the Reichstag. December 2, 1914. 
III. The Belgian Gray Book. (July 24, August 29, 1914.) January, 1915. 

87. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. V. 

The French Yellow Book, Translated and Prepared for Parliament by the British 
Government. February, 1915. 

88. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. V. 

The French Yellow Book, Translated and Prepared for Parliament by the British 
Government. March, 1915. 

89. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. VI. 

The Austrian Red Book, Official Translation Prepared by the Austrian Govern- 
ment. April, 1915. 

90. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. VII. 

The Serbian Blue Book. May, 1915. 

27 



LIST OF PUBLICATIONS— Con/mucJ 

91. The Fundamental Causes of the World War, by Alfred H. Fried. June, 1915. 

92. To the Citizens of the Belligerent States, by G. Heymans. July, 1913. 

93. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. VIII. 

Italy's Green Book, Translation approved by Royal Italian Embassy, Washing- 
ton, D. C. August, 1915. 

94. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. IX. 

Official Correspondence Between the United States and Germany. 
I. Declaration of London, August 6, 1914 — October 24, 1914. 
II. Contraband of War, September 4, 1914 — April 26, 1015. 

III. Restraints of Commerce, February 6, 1915 — September 7, 1915. 

IV. Caseof the William P. Frye, March3i,i9i5— July 30,1913. September, 1915. 

95. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. X. 

Official Correspondence Between the United States and Great Britain. 
I. Declaration of London, August 6, 1914 — October 22, 1914. 
II. Contraband of War, August 5, 1914 — April 10, 1915. 

III. Restraints of Commerce, December 26, 1914 — July 31, 1915. 

IV. Case of the Wilhelmina, February 15, 1915 — April 8, 1915. October, 1915. 

96. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. XI. 

I. Secretary Bryan's Letter to Senator Stone Regarding Charges of Partiality 
Shown to Great Britain, January 20, 1913. 
II. The Austro-Hungarian Minister for Foreign Affairs to Ambassador Pen- 
field, June 29, 1915. 
III. The Secretary of State to Ambassador Penfield, August 12, 1915. 
November, 19 15. 

97. Referendum on the Report of the Special Committee on Economic Results of the 

War and American Business. Reprinted by permission of the Chamber of 
Commerce of the United States. December, 1915. 

98. The Land Where Hatred Expires, by Albert L6on Gu^rard. January, 1916. 

99. America's Opinion of the World War, by Eduard Bernstein. Translated by 

John Mez. February, 1916. 

100. International Cooperation, by John Bassett Moore. The Outlook for Inter- 
national Law, by Elihu Root. March, 1916. 

loi. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. XII. 

Statement of Measures Adopted to Intercept the Sea-Borne Commerce of Ger- 
many. Presented to Both Houses of Parliament by Command of His Majesty, 
January, 1916. 
Great Britain's Measures Against German Trade. A Spyeech Delivered by the 
Rt. Hon. Sir E. Grey, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in the House c£ 
Commons, on the 26th of January, 1916. April, 1916. 

28 



LIST OF PUBLICATIONS— Con//nue</ 

102. Super-Resistance, by Harold C. Goddard. May, 1916. 

103. German White Book on Armed Merchantmen. June, 1916. 

104. Speech of Imperial German Chancellor before the Reichstag, on April S, 1916. 

July, 1916. 

los- Inter Arma Veritas, by William Allan Neilson. August, 1916. 

106. The Proposal for a League to Enforce Peace. Affirmative — William Howard 

Taft; Negative — Williaiu Jennings Bryan. September, 1916. 

107. Nationality and Beyond, by Nicholas Murray Butler. Do We Want Half the 

Hemisphere? by Brander Matthews. October, 1916. 

Special Bulletins: 

A Brief Outline of the Nature and Aims of Pacifism, by Alfred H. Fried. Trans- 
lated by John Mez. April, 1915. 

Internationalism. A list of Current Periodicals selected and annotated by Fred- 
erick C. Hicks. May, 1915. 

Preparedness as the Cartoonists See It, with introduction by Charles E. Jeflerson. 
May, 1915- 

Spirit of Militarism and Non-Military Preparation for Defense, by John Lovejoy 
Elliott and R. Tait McKenzie. June, 1915. 

E.xisting Alliances and a League of Peace, by John Bates Clark. July, 1915. 

Is Commerce War? By Henry Raymond Mussey. January, 1916.- 

Peace Literature of the War, by John Mez. January, 1916. 

Is There a Substitute for Force in International Relations? by Suh Hu. Prize 
essay. International Polity Club Competition, awarded June, 1916. 

Toward an Enduring Peace. A Symposium of Peace Proposals and Programs, 
1914-1916, compiled by Randolph S. Bourne, with an introduction by Franklin 
H. Giddings. 336 pages: for Special Distribution. October, 1916. 

Up to the limit of the editions printed, any one of the above will be sent postpaid upon 
receipt of a request addressed to the Secretary of the American Association for International 
Conciliation, Postoffice Sub-station 84, New York, N. Y. 



29 



COUNCIL OF DIRECTION OF THE 
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR INTERNATIONAL CONCIUATION 



Lyman Abbott, New York. 

Charles Francis Adams, Boston. 

Edwin A. Alderman, Charlottesville, 

Va. 
Robert Bacon, New York. 
Richard Bartholdt, St. Louis, Mo. 
George Blumenthal, New York. 
Clifton R. Breckeneidge, Fort Smith, 

Arkansas. 
William J. Bryan, Lincoln, Nebraska. 
T. E. Burton, Cleveland, Ohio. 
Nicholas Murray Butler, New York. 
Andrew Carnegie, New York. 
Edward Cary, New York. 
Joseph H. Choate, New York. 
Richard H. Dana, Boston, Mass. 
Arthur L. Dasher, Macon, Ga. 
Horace E. Deming, New York. 
Gano Dunn, New York. 
Charles W. Eliot, Cambridge, Mass. 
John W. Foster, Washington, D. C. 
Austen G. Fox, New York. 
Robert A. Franks, Orange, N. J. 
Robert Garrett, Baltimore, Md. 
Joseph P. Grace, New York. 
John Arthur Greene, New York. 
William J. Holland, Pittsburgh, Pa. 
Hamilton Holt, New York. 
David Starr Jordan, Stanford University, 

Cal. 
J. H. Kirkland. Nashville, Tenn. 
Adolfh Lewisohn, New Yokk. 



Clarence H. Mackay, New York. 

Theodore- Marburg, Baltimore, Md. 

Brander Matthews, New York. 

Silas McBee, New York. 

George B. McClellan, Princeton, N. J. 

Andrew J. Montague, Richmond, Va. 

W. W. Morrow, San Francisco, Cal. 

Levi P. Morton, New York. 

Stephen H. Olin, New York. 

Henry S. Pritchett, New York. 

A. V. V. Raymond, Buffalo, N. Y. 

Ira Remsen, Baltimore, Md. 

James Ford Rhodes, Boston, Mass. 

Elihu Root, Washington, D. C. 

J. G. Schurman, Ithaca, N. Y. 

James Brown Scott, Washington, D. C. 

Isaac N. Seligman, New York. 

Charles Hitchcock Sherrlll, New York. 

F. J. V. Skiff, Chicago, III. 

William M. Sloane, New York. 

James Speyer, New York. 

Oscar S. Straus, New York. 

Mrs. Mary Wood Swift, Berkeley, Cal. 

George W. Taylor, Demopolis, Ala. 

O. H. TiTTMAN, Washington, D. C. 

W. H. ToLMAN, New York. 

Charlemagne Tower, Philadelphia, Pa. 

Benjamin F. Trueblood, Newton Highlands, 

Mass. 
Edward Tuck, Paris, France. 
George E. Vincent, Minneapous, Minn. 
WnxiAM D. Wheelwright, Portland, Okx. 



30 



International Conciliation 

Published monthly by the 
American Association for International Conciliation. 
Entered as second class matter at New Yorls, N. Y. , 
Postoffice, February 23, 1909, under act of July 16, 1894 



WAR AND HUMAN PROGRESS 

(Reprinted with permission from the Atlantic Monthly, 
September, 1916) 




JAMES BRYCE 

NOVEMBER. 1916 
No. 108 



/•.\ 



c: 



American Association for International Conciliation 

Sub-Station 84 (407 West 1 17th Street) 

New York City 



It is the aim of the Association for International Con- 
ciliation to awaken interest and to seek co-operation 
in the movement to promote international good will. 
This movement depends for its ultimate success upon 
increased international understanding, appreciation, 
and sympathy. To this end, documents are printed 
and widely circulated, giving information as to the 
progress of the movement and as to matters connected 
therewith, in order that individual citizens, the news- 
paper press, and organizations of various kinds may 
have accurate information on these subjects readily 
available. 

It is the aim of the Association to avoid, as far as 
possible, contentious questions, and in particular 
questions relating to the domestic policy of any given 
nation. Attention is to be fixed rather upon those 
underlying principles of international law, international 
conduct, and international organization, which must 
be agreed upon and enforced by all nations if peaceful 
civilization is to continue and to be advanced. A list 
of pubUcations will be found on pages 28 to 30. 



WAR AND HUMAN PROGRESS 

BY JAMES BRYCE 



Those who have studied the general principles that 
guide human conduct and the working out of these prin- 
ciples as recorded in history have noted two main streams 
of tendency. One of these tendencies shows itself in the 
power of Reason and of those higher and gentler altruistic 
emotions which the development of Reason as the guide of 
life tends to evoke and foster. The other tendency is 
associated with the less rational elements in man — with 
passion and the self-regarding impulses which naturally 
attain their ends by physical violence. 

Thus two schools of philosophical thinkers or historians 
have been formed. One lays stress on the power of the 
former set of tendencies. It finds in them the chief 
sources of human progress in the past, and expects from 
them its further progress in the future. It regards man 
as capable of a continual advance through the increasing 
influence of reason and sympathy. It dwells on the ideas 
of Justice and Right as the chief factors in the ameliora- 
tion of society, and therefore regards good-will and peace 
as the goal of humxan endeavor in the sphere both of 
national and of international life. Its faith in htunan 
nature — that is to say, in the possibility of improving 
hiunan nature — makes it hopeful for the ordinary man, 
who may, in its view, be brought by education, and under 
a regime of beneficence, to a higher level than he has yet 
anywhere attained. 

The other school .is less sanguine. It insists on the 
power of selfishness and of passion, holding these to be 
elements in human action which can never be greatly re- 



fined or restrained, either by reason or by sympathy. 
Social order — so it holds — can be secured only by Force, 
and Right itself is created only by Force. It is past force 
that has made what men call Right and Law and Govern- 
ment; it is Force and Force alone that sustains the social 
structure. The average man needs discipline; and the 
best thing he can do is to submit to the strong man — 
strength, of course, consisting not only in physical capac- 
ity, but in a superiority of will and intellect also. This 
school, which used to defend slavery as useful and, in- 
deed, necessary, — the older among us can remember a 
time when that ancient, time-honored institution was still 
so defended, — prefers the rule of the superior One or Few 
monarchy or oligarchy, to the rule of the Many. Quite 
consistently, it has usually regarded war as a necessary 
and valuable form of discipline, because war is the final 
embodiment and test of physical force. 

This opposition can be traced a long way back. It is 
already visible in the days of Plato, who combats the 
teaching of some of. the Sophists that Justice is merely 
the advantage of the strong. From his time onward 
great philosophical schools followed his lead. The poets 
from Hesiod onward, gave an ideal expression to the love 
of peace in their pictiu-es of a Golden Age before the use 
of copper and iron had been discovered. Virgil describes 
the primeval Saturnia Regna, the time before war trum- 
pets were blown or the anvil sounded under the strokes of 
the swordsmith's hammer, — 

Necdum etiam audierant inflari classica, necdum 
Impositos duris crepitare incudibus enses. 

This was the happy time of man, to which the Roman 
poet who acclaimed the restoration of peace by Augustus 
looked back, desiring a rest from the unending strife of 
the ancient world. Just after Virgil's day, Christianity 
proclaimed peace as its message to all mankind. Twelve 
hundred years later, in an age full of strife, Dante, the 
most imaginative mind of the Middle Ages, hoped for 
peace from the universal sway of a pious and disinterested 
Emperor; and, nearly six himdred years after him, in the 



days of Frederick the Great of Prussia, Immanuel Kant, 
the greatest metaphysician of the modem world, pro- 
duced his plan for the establishment of an everlasting 
peace. 

These hopes and teachings of poets and philosophers, 
though they had little power in the world of fact (for few 
rulers or statesmen, even of those who rendered lip-ser\dce 
to pacific principles, ever tried to apply them to practice) , 
continued to prevail in the world of theory, and seemed, 
especially after the final extinction of slavery fifty years 
ago and the spread of democracy from America to Europe, 
to be passing into the category of generally accepted 
truths. 

Latterly, however, there has come a noteworthy re- 
action. A school of thinkers has arisen which, not con- 
tent with maintaining war to be a necessary factor in the 
relations between states, as being the only ultimately 
available method of settling their disputes, declares it to 
be a method in itself wholesome and socially valuable. 
To these thinkers it is not an inevitable evil, but a positive 
good — a thing not merely to be expected and excused, but 
to be desired for the benefits it confers on mankind. This 
school challenges the assumptions of the lovers of peace 
and denounces their projects of disarmament and arbi- 
tration as pernicious. War, it seems, is a medicine which 
human society needs, and which must be administered at 
frequent intervals; for it is the only tonic capable of 
bracing up the character of a nation. 

Such doctrines are a natural result of the system of 
thought which exalts the functions and proclaims the 
supremacy of the State. The State stands by Power. 
The State is Power. Its power rests upon force. By 
force it keeps order and executes the law within its limits. 
Outside its limits there is no law, but only force. Neither 
is there any morality. The State is a law unto itself, and 
owes no duty to other states. Self-preservation is the 
principle of its being. Its Might is Right, the only pos- 
sible Right. War, or the threat of war, is the sole means 
by which the State can make its will prevail against other 



states; and where its interest requires war, to war it must 
resort, reckless of the so-called rights of others. 

This modem doctrine, or rather this modernized and 
developed form of an old doctrine, bases itself on two 
main arguments. One is drawn from the realm of ani- 
mated nature, the other from history. Both lines of 
argument are meant to show that all progress is achieved 
by strife. Among animals and plants, it is Natural 
Selection and the Struggle for Life that have evolved the 
higher forms from the lower, destroying the weaker 
species, and replacing them by the stronger. Among men, 
it is the same process of unending conflict that has en- 
abled the higher races and the more civilized States to 
overcome the lower and less advanced, either extinguish- 
ing them altogether, or absorbing them and imposing 
upon such of them as remain, the more perfect type of 
the conquerors. 

The theory I am describing has, in these latest years, 
acquired for us a more than theoretical interest. It has 
passed out of the world of thought into the world of 
action, becoming a potent factor in the relations of states. 
It has been used to justify, not merely war itself, but 
methods of warfare till recently unheard of — ^methods 
which, though defended as promoting human progress, 
threaten to carry us back into the ages of barbarism. It 
deserves to be carefully examined, so that we may see 
upon what foundations it rests. I propose to consider 
briefly the two lines of argument just referred to, which 
may be called the biological and the historical. 

II 

Never yet was a doctrine adopted for one set of reasons 
which its advocates could not somehow contrive to sup- 
port by other reasons. In the Middle Ages men generally 
resorted to the Bible, never failing to find a text which 
they could so interpret as to justify their views or their 
acts. Pope Gregory the Seventh, perhaps the most strik- 
ing figure of the eleventh century, proved to the men of 
his time that his own spiritual power was superior to the 

6 



I 



secular power by citing that passage in the Book of 
Genesis which says that the sun was created to rule the 
day and the moon to rule the night. The reader may 
not see the connection, but his contemporaries did. The 
Sim was the Popedom and the moon was the Empire. 
In our own time — I am old enough to remember the fact, 
and the reader will find it referred to in Uncle Tom's 
Cabin (which I hope is still read, for its appearance was a 
great event in history) — the apologists of Negro slavery 
justified that "peculiar institution" by quoting the pas-, 
sage in Genesis where Noah prophesies that Ham, or 
rather Canaan the son of Ham, shall serve his elder 
brother Shem. In the then current biblical ethnology. 
Ham was the progenitor of the black races of Africa, and 
the fact that even that ethnography did not make Shem 
the progenitor of the Anglo-American race was passed 
over. This argument had no great currency outside the 
slave states. But another book besides the Bible was 
open, and to that also an appeal was made: the Book of 
Nature. It was frequently alleged by the defenders of 
slavery in Europe, as well as in America, that the Negro 
was not really a man, but one of the higher apes, and 
certain points from his bone-structure were adduced to 
prove this thesis. 

Less use is made of Scripture now for political purposes 
than in the days of Gregory the Seventh or even in those 
of Jefferson Davis. But attempts to press science into 
the service of politics are not unknown in our generation, 
so we must not be surprised that a nation which is nothing 
if not scientific should have sought and found in what is 
called the Darwinian Doctrine of Natural Selection a 
proof of their view that the elimination of the weak by 
the strong is a principle of universal potency, the method 
by which progress is attained in the social and political 
no less than in the natural sphere. 

Their argtiment has been stated thus: the geological 
record shows that more highly developed forms have been 
through countless ages evolved from forms simpler and 
more rudimentary. Cryptogamous plants — lichens, 



mosses, ferns — come first, and out of these the phanerog- 
amous were developed. Animal life began with zoophytes 
and molluscs; serpents and birds followed; then came 
the mammalia, these culminating in Man. Some species 
■disappeared and were replaced in the perpetual struggle 
for existence by others that had proved themselves 
stronger. Every species fights to maintain itself against 
the others; there is not room enough for all; the weak 
disappear, the stronger prevail. So the earlier forms of 
man himself have succumbed to others superior in 
strength; and among these latter some races have shown 
a greater capacity, physical and mental, and have either 
displaced the weaker, or lexterminated them, or conquered 
them, sometimes enslaving them, sometimes absorbing 
them. When the conquered svirvive, they receive the 
impress of the conqueror and are conformed to his more 
perfect type. Thus the white man has prevailed against 
the colored man. Thus the Teuton is prevailing against 
the Slav and the Celt, and is indeed fitted by his higher 
gift for intellectually creative, as well as practical organ- 
ization, to be the Lord of the World, as the lion is lord of 
the forest and the eagle lord of the air. 

As progress in the animal creaticMi is effected by a strife 
in which the animal organisms possessing most force pre- 
vail and endure, so progress in the political world comes 
through conflicts in which the strongest social organisms, 
that is, the states best equipped for war, prove themselves 
able to overcome the weaker. Without war this victory 
of the best cannot come about. Hence, war is a main 
cause of progress. 

Lest this simmiary should misrepresent the view I am 
endeavoring to state, — and it is not easy to state it cor- 
rectly, for there lurks in it some mental confusion, — I 
will cite a few passages from one of its exponents, who 
puts it in a crudely brief form convenient for quotation. 
Others have probably stated it better, but all that need 
be done here is to show how some, at least, of those who 
hold it have expressed themselves. 

"Wherever we look in Nature we find that war is a 

8 



fundamental law of development. This great verity, 
which has been recognized in past ages, has been con- 
vincingly demonstrated in modern times by Charles Dar- 
win. He proved that nature is ruled by an unceasing 
struggle for existence, by the right of the stronger, and 
that this struggle in its apparent cruelty brings about a 
selection eliminating the weak and the unwholesome." 

"The natural law to which all the laws of nature can 
be reduced is the law of struggle." 

''From the first beginning of life, war has been the 
basis of all healthy development. Struggle is not merely 
the destructive, but the life-giving principle. The law of 
the stronger holds good everywhere. Those forms sur- 
vive which are able to secure for themselves the most 
favorable conditions of life. The weaker succumb." 

Now, let us examine this so-called argument from the 
biological world and see whether or how far it supports 
the thesis that the law of progress through strife is a uni- 
versal law, applicable to human communities as well as 
to animals and plants. 

Several objections present themselves. First, this 
theory is an attempt to apply what are called natural laws 
to a sphere unlike that of external nature. The facts we 
study in the external world are wholly different from 
those we study in human society. There • are in that 
society certain generally observable sequences of phe- 
nomena which we popularly call laws of social develop- 
ment: that is, individual men and communities of men 
show certain recurrent tendencies which may be com- 
pared with the recurrent sequences in the behavior of in- 
animate substances and in the animated creation. But 
the human or social sequences have not that uniformity, 
that generality, that capacity for being counted or meas- 
ured, and thereby expressed in precise and unvarying 
terms, which belong to things in the world of external 
nature. Oxygen and sulphiir always and everywhere 
behave (so far as we know) in exactly the same way when 
the conditions are exactly the same. Every oak tree and 
every apple tree, however different the individuals of the 



species may be in size, grow in the same way, and the 
laws of their growth can be so stated as to be appHcable 
to all members of the species. But we cannot do more 
than conjecture, with more or less confidence, but never 
with certainty of prediction, how any given man or any 
given community of men will behave luider any given 
set of conditions. 

The human body no doubt consists of tissues, and the 
tissues of cells. But each individual in the species Homo 
Sapiens Europceus has, when considered as a human be- 
ing, something peculiar to himself which is not and can- 
not be completely known or meastu"ed. His action is 
due to so many complex and hidden causes, and is there- 
fore so incalculable by any scientific apparatus; he is 
played upon by so many forces whose presence and 
strength no qualitative or quantitative analysis can de- 
termine, that both his thoughts and his conduct are 
practically unpredictable. That which we call a general 
scientific law is therefore totally diiTerent from what it is 
in the world of external nature. Considerations drawn 
from that world are therefore, when applied to man, not 
argiunents but, at best, mere analogies, sometimes sug- 
gestive as indicating lines of inquiry, but never approach- 
ing the character of exact science. 

Secondly, that which is called the Darwinian principle 
of Natiu"al Selection is a matter still in controversy 
among scientific men. A distinguished zoologist, for in- 
stance. Dr. Chalmers Mitchell, whose little book entitled 
Evolution and the War may be commended as full of in- 
terest and instruction, pronounces the principle to be 
only a highly probable hypothesis regarding the process 
by which the evolution of species has taken place, but 
still no more, as yet, than a hypothesis. The methods by 
which natural selection takes place are uncertain. Higher 
and more complex forms do certainly come out of lower 
and simpler forms; and the adaptability to environment 
would seem to be an extremely important factor in their 
development. More than that — so one gathers from the 
biologists — one is not entitled to assert. 

lO 



Thirdly, the Struggle for Life in the Darwinian sense is 
not so much a combat between species as a combat be- 
tween individuals of the same species, which, like the 
seeds of plants, dispute the same bit of soil, or, like the 
carnivorous animals, feed on the same creatures and find 
there is not enough to go round. In the animal world we 
find nothing really like the wars of htiman tribes or states. 
Tigers or other bellicose animals do not fight either with 
other tigers or with such other feline tribes as leopards. 
Individuals may fight in those occasional cases where the 
possession of the same female is disputed by two males; 
but groups do not fight each other. Tigers kill antelopes 
for food; they have no impulse to dominate or to extir- 
pate, but only to support their own life. If zoology fur- 
nishes any analogy to the contests of nations, it is to be 
found, not in the clash of Teutonic and Slavonic armies, 
but where there is an appropriation, by individuals pos- 
sessing superior industry and skill, of the means of liveli- 
hood and opportunities for amassing wealth which trade 
and civilized finance offer to all alike who will address 
themselves to the task. Here is not war, but a competi- 
tion for means of livelihood. 

Fourthly, the supersession of one species by another is 
certainly not effected, in the external world, by fighting, 
but apparently by the adaptation to its environment of 
the species which ultimately survives. Where an oceanic 
island like Hawaii is overrun by new species of plants 
whose seeds, or seedlings, are brought from another coun- 
try, what happens is that some of the new species thus 
introduced find in the isle an environment of soil and 
climate which suits them so well that they multiply and 
crowd out, by their natural growth in the soil, the weaker 
of the native species established there, till at last a mixed 
flora results, representing both the old natives and other 
species from elsewhere. In 1883, when I saw it, Hawaii 
had thrice been thus overrun. You may see a somewhat 
similar process where the turf has been cut off a piece of 
land, leaving it bare for seeds to settle on. Various 
species appear, some perhaps hardly known before in the 

II 



neighborhood; but after some years a few will be found 
in possession. Here we have a phenomenon to which 
there are parallels in the rapid growth of some trees in 
certain sections and the displacement of others. But 
there is nothing like this in hiiman war. And on the 
other hand there is in the animal world no parallel to the 
fundamental fact that in human warfare it is not the 
weaker but the stronger part of the population that is 
drawn away to perish on the battle-field. 

Fifthly, we must note in this connection two other im- 
portant factors in the extension and decline of species. 
One of them is liability to disease. The other is fecundity. 
Here an analogy between plants and animals, on the one 
hand, and the races or sub-races of mankind, may no 
doubt be traced. But there is here no conflict: the 
causes which make some species more susceptible to 
maladies than others, or make some more prolific than 
others, exist everywhere in animated nature. But they 
exist in the species, or race, being due to something in its 
peculiar constitution. They have nothing to do with 
conflict between one species, or one race, and another 
species or race. That these physical factors have more 
to do with the nimierical strength of a species than has 
its capacity for fighting, when we compare the diffusion 
of some predatory with non-predatory species, is so clear 
that it is not worth while to adduce instances. It may 
be noted, however, that in some of the most advanced 
races of man the birth-rate is so much lower than in the 
backward races as to threaten the ultimate supremacy of 
the former. 

These considerations, which I have been obliged to 
state only in outline, seem sufficient to show how hollow 
is the argument which recommends war as the general law 
of the universe and a main cause of progress in the human 
as well as the natural world. It is not an argxmient at 
all, but an analogy, and an imperfect one at that. Let 
me add that the view which regards war as a useful factor 
in human development had no support from Darwin him- 
self. So far from considering war a cause of progress, he 

12 



wrote, in the Origin of Species, "In every country in which 
a large standing army is kept up, the finest young men 
are taken by conscription or enlisted. They are thus 
exposed to early death during war, are often tempted into 
vice, and are prevented from marrying during the prime 
of life. On the other hand, the shorter and feebler men, 
with poor constitutions, are left at home, and consequently 
have a much better chance of marrying." 

Ill 

So much for the first set of grounds on which the war 
theorists rely. Let us turn to the second, that is to say, 
the argument from history. It is alleged that the record 
of all that man has done and suffered is largely a record 
of constant strife — a fact undeniably tme-^-and that 
thereby the races and nations and states which are now 
able to do most for the further advance of mankind have 
prevailed. They have prevailed by war; war therefore 
has been the means, and the necessary means, of that 
predominance which has enabled them to civilize the best 
parts of the globe. 

Before beginning this part of the inquiry, let us see 
what progress means. It is a term which covers several 
quite different things. 

There is Material progress, by which I understand 
an increase in wealth, that is, in the commodities useful 
to man, which give him health, strength, and longer life, 
and make his life easier, providing more comfort and more 
leisure, and thus enabling him to be more physically 
efficient, and to escape from that pressure of want which 
hampers the development of his whole nature. 

There is Intellectual progress — an increase in knowledge, 
a greater abundance of ideas, the training to think and 
thinl<: correctly, the growth in capacity for dealing with 
practical problems, the cultivation of the power to enjoy 
the exercise of thought and the pleasures of letters and art. 

There is Moral progress — a thing harder to define, but 
which includes the development of those emotions and 
habits which make for happiness — contentment and tran- 

13 



quillity of mind; the absence of the more purely animal 
and therefore degrading vices (such as intemperance and 
sensuality in all its other forms) ; the control of the violent 
passions; good- will and kindliness toward others — all the 
things which fall within the philosophical conception of a 
life guided by right reason. People have different ideas 
of what constitutes happiness and virtue, but these things 
are at any rate included in every such conception. 

A further preliminary question arises. Is human 
progress to be estimated in respect to the point to which 
it raises the few who have high mental gifts and the oppor- 
tunity of obtaining an education fitting them for intel- 
lectual enjoyment and intellectual vocations, or is it to be 
measured by the amount of its extension to and diffusion 
through each nation, meaning the nation as a whole — • 
the average men as well as the superior spirits? You may 
sacrifice either the many to the few, — as was done by 
slavery, — or the few to the many, or the advance may be 
general and proportionate in all classes. 

Again, when we think of progress, are we to thinlc of 
the world as a whole, or only of the stronger and more 
capable races and states? If the stronger rise upon the 
prostrate bodies of the weaker, is this clear gain to the 
world, because the stronger will ultimately do more for 
the world, or is the loss and suffering of the weaker to be 
brought into the account? I do not attempt to discuss 
these questions; it is enough to note them as fit to be re- 
membered; for perhaps all three kinds of progress ought 
to be differently judged if a few leading nations only are 
to be regarded, or if we are to think of all mankind. 

Now let us address ourselves to history. Does history 
show that progress has come more through and by war 
or through and by peace? It woiild be tedious to pursue 
an examination of the question down through the annals 
of mankind from the days when authentic records begin; 
but we may take a few of those salient instances to which 
the advocates of the war doctrine and those of the peace 
doctrine would appeal as sustaining their respective theses. 



Let us divide these instances into four classes, as follows: 
(i) Instances cited to show that War promotes Progress. 

(2) Instances cited to show that Peace has failed to 
promote Progress. 

(3) Instances cited to show that War has failed to 
promote Progress. 

(4) Instances cited to show that Peace promotes 
Progress. 

I begin with the cases in which war is alleged to have 
been the cause of progress. 

It is undeniable that war has often been accompanied 
by an advance in civilization. If we were to look for 
progress only in times of peace there would have been little 
progress to discover, for mankind has lived in a state 
of practically permanent warfare. The Egyptian and 
Assyrian monarchs were always fighting. The author of 
the Book of Kings speaks of spring as the time when kings 
go forth to war, much as we should speak of autumn as 
the time when men go forth to shoot deer. IIoAeyLio? ^vo-ct 
virapx^i- Trpos aTracras ras TroAct?, ^ said PlatO. The fact has 
been hardly less true since his day, though latterly men 
have become accustomed to think of peace as the normal, 
war as the abnormal or exceptional, relation of states to 
one another. In the ancient world, as late as the days 
of Roman conquest, a state of peace was the rare excep- 
tion among civilized states as well as barbarous tribes. 
But Carthage, like her Phoenician mother-city, went on 
building up a mighty commerce till Rome smote her down, 
and the Hellenic people, in its many warring cities, went 
on producing noble poems and profound philosophical 
speculations, and rearing majestic temples and adorning 
them with incomparable works of sculpture, in the inter- 
vals of their fighting with their neighbors of the same 
and other races. The case of the Greeks proves that 
War and Progress are compatible. Whoever visits Sicily 
and the coasts of the ^Egean cannot but be struck by the 
thought that it was in the midst of warfare that the 

^War is the natural relation of states to one another. 

15 



majestic buildings of these regions were erected at enor- 
mous cost. 

The case of Rome is still more often dwelt upon. Her 
material greatness was due to the conquests which made 
her mistress of the world. She also achieved intellectual 
greatness in her poets and orators and jurists, and by her 
literature and her laws contributed immensely to the 
progress of mankind. How far are these achievements 
to be credited to that long course of conquest? 

The Temple of Janus had stood open as a sign of war 
for two hundred years, when it was closed by Augustus 
in B.C. 29 to indicate the general peace he had established. 
The spirit of the Roman people was sustained at a high 
level by military triimiphs, as discipline and the capacity 
for organization and united national action were also 
engendered and sustained. But it is to be noted that, 
although the Romans had shown great political intelli- 
gence in creating and working their curiously complex 
constitution, their literary production attained no high 
level until Hellenic influences had worked upon it. To 
these influences, more than to any material causes, its 
excellence is due. Nor did the creative epoch last long. 
War continued; but production declined both in letters 
and in art after the days of the great warrior Trajan, 
though there was more fighting than ever. The waning 
strength of the Empire, as well as the economic decay of 
Italy, has been justly attributed in large measure to the 
exhaustion by warfare of the old Italian stock. 

In the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, 
when civilization had greatly advanced in southern and 
western Europe, the phenomena of ancient Greece were 
repeated. Incessant wars between the cities of Italy did 
not prevent the growth of a brilliant literature and an 
even more brilliant art. It is, however, to be noted that, 
while the fighting was universal, the literature was confined 
to comparatively few centres, and there were places like 
the Neapolitan South, in which high artistic talent was 
rare. There is nothing in Italian history to show any 
causal connection between intellectual activity and the 

16 



practice of war. The same may be said of France. The 
best work in literature and art was done in a time of com- 
parative tranquillity under Louis XIV, not in the more 
troubled days of the Hundred Years' War with England 
and of the religious wars of the sixteenth centiu-y. 

The capital instance of the association of war with the 
growth and greatness of a state is found in Prussia. One 
may say that her history is the source of the whole thesis 
and the basis of the whole argtiment. It is a case of what, 
in the days when I learned logic at the University of 
Oxford, we used to call the induction from a single in- 
stance. Prussia, then a small state, began her upward 
march under the warlike and successful prince whom her 
people call the Great Elector. Her next long step to 
greatness was taken by Frederick II, again by favor of 
successful warfare, though doubtless also by means of a 
highly organized, and, for those days, very efficient ad- 
ministration. Voltaire said of Frederick's Prussia that 
its trade was war. Another war added to her territory 
in i8 14-15. Three successful wars — those of 1864, 1866, 
and 1870-71 — made her the nucleus of a iinited German 
nation and the leading military power of the Old World. 

Ever since those victories her industrial production, 
her commerce, and her wealth, have rapidly increased, 
while at the same time scientific research has been prose- 
cuted with the greatest vigor and on a scale unprece- 
dentedly large. These things were no doubt achieved 
during a peace of forty-three years. But it was what one 
may call a belligerent peace, full of thoughts of war and 
preparations for war. There is no denying that the 
national spirit has been carried to a high point of pride, 
energy, and self-confidence, which have stimulated effort 
in all directions and secured extraordinary efficiency in 
civil as well as in military administration. Here, then, 
is an instance in which a state has grown by war and a 
people has been energized by war. 

But before drawing any conclusions from this solitary 
instance three questions must be asked: — 

Will the present conflict be attended by such a success 

17 



as to lead the Prussian people to approve the policy which 
this war spirit has inspired? 

Even supposing that the nation is not defeated and 
humbled in the struggle, may not its material prosperity 
be thrown back and its internal tranquillity impaired? 

May not the national character turn out to have 
suffered a declension which it will take long to cure? 

Results cannot be judged at the moment. What people 
was ever prouder of its world-dominion than the Romans 
at the time of Augustus? Yet the seeds of decline were 
already sown. Within two generations, men like Tacitus 
had begtm to note the signs of a slowly approaching 
dissolution, and within two centuries the dissolution was 
at hand. To this it may be added that the advance of 
any single state by violent methods may involve greater 
harm to the world than- the benefits which that . state 
expects to gain, or than those which it proposes to confer 
upon its neighbors by imposing its civilization upon them. 

I pass to another set of cases, those in which it is argued 
that the absence of war has meant the absence of progress. 
Such cases are rare, because so few countries have enjoyed, 
or had the chance of suffering from, periods of long peace. 
Two, however, may be referred to. One is supplied by 
the Spanish dominions in America from the middle of the 
sixteenth till the beginning of the nineteenth century, 
when they threw off the yoke of the mother-country. 
These vast countries, stretching from California to Pata- 
gonia, lay lapped in a peace distiirbed only by the occa- 
sional raids of Dutch or British sea-rovers, and by skirm- 
ishes, rarely severe, with native Indian tribes. The 
Spanish colonies certainly did stagnate, and* made no 
sensible advance either materially or intellectually. Was 
peace the cause of their stagnation? It may be easily 
explained by the facts that they were ruled by a govern- 
ment at once autocratic and incapable, and that they 
lived so far from the European world of ideas as to be 
hardly affected by its vivifying influences. Such causes 
were amply siifficient to arrest progress. 

The other case, often cited, is that of China. She is 

i8 



supposed to have become flaccid, feeble, immovably con- 
servative, because her people, long unaccustomed to war, 
have contracted a pacific temper. In this statement there 
is some exaggeration, for there has always been a good deal 
of fighting on the outskirts of the Chinese Empire; and 
in the Tao Ping insurrection forty years ago millions of 
men are said to have been killed. It must also be re- 
membered that in Art, at least, — one of the activities in 
which the Chinese hold a leading place, — there have been 
frequent changes and some brilliant revivals during the 
centuries of peace. China reached in comparatively early 
times a civilization very remarkable on its moral and in- 
tellectual as well as on its material side. That her sub- 
sequent progress was slow, sometimes hardly discernible, 
is mainly attributable to her complete isolation, with no 
nation near her from which she had anything to learn, 
because the tribes to the southwest and west — tribes 
constantly occupied in war — ^were far inferior to her. 
Lucky has it been for the rest of the world that her three 
hundred and fifty millions, belonging to a race both 
physically strong and capable of discipline, have been of a 
pacific temper, valuing trade and industry, artistic creation 
and skill in literary composition, as objects worthier of 
man than martial prowess. 

Whoever travels among the Chinese sees that, peaceful 
as they are, they are anything but a decadent or exhausted 
race. Nor is it idle to remark that the Japanese, a really 
military people, had during many centuries made no more 
progress than their Chinese teachers, and for the same 
reason: that they had remained, down to our own time, 
cut off, by their own wish, from all the stimulating in- 
fluences which the white races were exerting upon one 
another. 

Next, let us take the cases which show that there have 
been in many countries long periods of incessant war with 
no corresponding progress in the things that make civiliza- 
tion. I will not speak of semi-barbarous tribes, among 
the more advanced of which may be placed the Albanians 
and the Pathans and the Turkomans, while among the 

19 



more backward were the North American Indians and 
the Zulus. But one may cite the case of the civilized 
regions of Asia under the successors of Alexander, when 
civilized peoples, distracted by incessant strife, did little 
for the progress of arts or letters or government, from the 
death of the great conqueror till they were united under 
the dominion of Rome and received from her a time of 
comparative tranquillity. 

The Thirty Years' War is an example of long-continued 
fighting which, far from bringing progress in its train, 
inflicted injiiries on Germany from which she did not 
recover for nearly two centuries. In recent times, there 
has been more fighting in South and Central America, 
since the wars of independence, than in any other civilized 
countries. Yet can any one say that anything has been 
gained by the unending civil wars and revolutions, or 
those scarcely less frequent wars between the several 
republics, like that terrible one thirty years ago in which 
Peru was overcome by Chile? Or look at Mexico. Ex- 
cept during the years when the stem dictatorship of 
Porfirio Diaz kept order and equipped the country with 
roads and railways, her people have made no perceptible 
advance, and stand hardly higher tc-day than when they 
were left to work out their own salvation a hundred years 
ago. Social and economic conditions have doubtless been 
against her. All that need be remembered is that warfare 
has not bettered those conditions, or improved the national 
character. 

Last of all we come to cases in which periods of peace 
have been attended by an increase in national prosperity 
and by intellectual development. These periods have 
been few and generally short, for (as already observed) 
war has been everywhere the rule and peace the exception. 
Nevertheless, one may point to instances like that of the 
comparative order and repose which England enjoyed 
after the Wars of the Roses. There were some foreign 
wars under the Tudors; there were brilliant achievements 
and adventures on the seas. There were some few internal 
revolts under Elizabeth. But the great bulk of the nation 



was left free for agriculture and trade and thought. It 
was the age that produced More and Bacon and Harvey, 
Sidney and Spenser and Shakespeare. Two similar 
instances are furnished by the rapid progress of Scotland 
after the Revolution of 1688-89 gave her internal peace, 
and the siniilar progress of Norway from 1814 till our own 
days. The annals of Switzerland since 181 5 and those 
of Belgium since her creation in 1832 have shown that a 
peace maintained diiring two generations is compatible, 
not only with the rapid growth of industrial prosperity, 
but also with the preservation of a courageous and 
patriotic spirit, ready to face the dangers of war. 

IV 

If this hasty historical survey has, as I frankly admit, 
given us few positive and definite results, the reason is 
plain. Human progress is affected by so many conditions 
besides the presence or absence of fighting that it is im- 
possible in any given case to pronounce that it has been 
chiefly due either to war or to peace. Two conclusions, 
however, we may claim to have reached, though they are 
rather negative than positive. One is that war does not 
necessarily arrest progress. Peoples may advance in 
thought, literature, and art while they are fighting. The 
other is that war cannot be shown to have been a cause of 
progress in anything except the wealth or power of a state 
which extends its dominions by conquest or draws tribute 
from the vanquished. 

In those cases, however, where the victorious state has 
gained materially, there are two other things to be con- 
sidered. One is the possible loss to the victorious state 
of the good-will of other nations who may reprobate its 
methods or fear its aggressive tendencies. Another is 
the political injury it may suffer by sacrificing, as usually 
happens with military states, its domestic freedom to its 
achievements in war, or the moral injury which the pre- 
dominance of warlilce ideals is apt to bring to national 
character. And if we extend our view to take in the 
general gain or loss to world-progress, the benefits reaped 

21 



by the victorious state may be more than counterbalanced 
by the harm inflicted on the vanqtiished. When the 
Macedonian kings destroyed the freedom of Greece, did 
not mankind lose far more than Macedon gained? 

The weakness of the argument which recommends and 
justifies war by the suggestion that it is by war that the 
foremost races and states have estabHshed their position 
may be very briefly stated. War has been practically 
universal. AU the races and states have fought, some 
better, some worse. The best fighters have not always 
succeeded, for they may have been fewer in niimber. 
There is no necessary connection between fighting" quality 
and intellectual quality. True it is that some of the 
intellectually gifted peoples have also been warlike 
peoples. The Greeks were; so are the French and the 
Germans. But the Turks, who are good fighters, are 
good for nothing else; and the dull Spartans fought better 
on land, at least, than the bright Athenians. Where the 
gift for fighting goes with the gift for thought, the success 
achieved by the intellectual race in war is not a result but 
a symptom, an indication or evidence of an exceptional 
natural force. Those races and states that are now in 
the front rank of civilization have shown their capacity 
in many other fields besides that of war. All that can 
safely be said to be proved by history is that a race which 
cannot fight or will not fight when a proper occasion 
arises, as, for instance, when it has to vindicate its inde- 
pendence, is likely to go down, and be subjected or 
absorbed. Yet the fact that a state is subjected or ab- 
sorbed does not prove its inferiority. There is no poetical 
justice in history. The highly gifted race may be small, 
like Israel, or too much divided to maintain itself, like 
the Hellenes of antiquity. From 1490 to 1560 Italy was 
the prey of foreign invaders; but she was doing more for 
human progress in art and letters than all the other 
Eiu-opean nations put together. 

So far, then, our inquiry has shown two things. One is 
the worthlessness of the biological analogy — ^for it is only 
an analogy — between animated nature and human so- 

22 



ciety, based upon what is called the Struggle for Life and 
the Survival of the Fittest. The other is the weakness of 
the argimients drawn from history to prove war necessary 
to progress. v 

V 

Let us now, in conclusion, try to approach the question 
in another way. Let us ask what are the consequences 
which seem naturally to flow from the devotion to war 
of a nation's gifts and powers, whether physical or in- 
tellectual. Reverting to the distinction already drawn 
between Material, Intellectual, and Moral progress, let 
us see what are the consequences to be expected in each 
of these spheres from that process of killing an enemy and 
capturing or destroying his property which we call war, 
and how far they will make for the general progress of 
mankind. 

Materially regarded, war is destruction. It is the de- 
struction of those who are killed, and the reduction of the 
physical working power of the combatants who survive, 
by maiming or disease. It is thus a diminution of the 
wealth-producing capacity of the combatant nations, 
whether they be victors or vanquished. It is also the de- 
struction of articles of value, such as crops, railways, 
bridges and other buildings, and the contents of build- 
ings, including works of art and libraries. It is an inter- 
ruption of international trade as well as of production, 
and therefore a cutting-off, for the time being, of that 
other source of gain which consists in an exchange of 
commodities produced better or more cheaply in one 
country than they can be in another. It involves a fur- 
ther lessening of wealth by the withdrawal from their 
productive activities of a large number of workers, not 
only during the actual fighting, but during the time spent 
in being trained to fight. All these results mean waste 
of resoiirces and the impoverishment of a nation, with a 
corresponding shock to its credit. 

Against these losses there may be set, in the case of a 
conquering country, what it acquires by seizure of prop- 
erty, annexation of territory, levying of contributions and 

23 



of indemnities, although these forcibly gotten gains do 
not always prosper. There may also be new openings to 
foreign trade, and victory may evoke an enterprising 
spirit which will push that trade with new vigor. But 
such possible indirect benefits are usually far outweighed 
by the direct loss. 

Another loss is also to be considered in estimating the 
effects of war on a nation — not only the diminution of 
the population by death in battle, but also the reduced 
vigor and efficiency of the next generation. Those who 
are killed are presumably the strongest and healthiest 
men, for it is these who are the first to be drafted into the 
fighting forces; and it is the best regiments that suffer 
most, because they are selected for the most critical and 
perilous enterprises. Thus, that part of the nation which 
is best fitted to have a vigorous progeny perishes, and the 
births of children during, and long after, the war will be 
chiefly from a male parenthood of a quality below that of 
the average as it stood before the war. The physique of 
the French people is said to have suffered palpably from 
the tremendous drain of the strongest men into the armies 
of the Revolution and of Napoleon. 

In the sphere of intellectual life, the obvious effect of 
war is to turn the thoughts of a large part of the nation 
toward military and naval topics. Inventors busy them- 
selves with those physical and chemical researches which 
promise results profitable for war. Such researches may 
incidentally lead to discoveries of value in other fields, just 
as the practice of military surgery in the field may ad- 
vance surgical science in general. But the main effect 
must be to distract from pure science, and from the ap- 
plications of science to industry, minds that might have 
done better work for the world in those fields of activity. 
In general, the thought of a people that delights in war 
will be occupied with material considerations; and while 
the things of the body will be prized, the things of the 
mind will be disparaged, save in so far as they make for 
military success. A fighting caste will be formed, im- 
posing its peculiar ideals on the people; the standards 

24 



of value will become more and more practical, and the 
interest in pure truth and in thought and art for their 
own sake may decline. 

These are conditions not favorable to progress in the 
higher forms of literary or scientific work. Against them 
is to be set that stimulus which a great war is held to give 
to the whole life of a people. When it rouses them to the 
maximum of effort, and gives them the strongest con- 
sciousness of national unity, it may also — so we hear it 
argued — invigorate them for intellectual creation. It 
woidd be rash to deny this possibility, but no one seems 
to have succeeded in tracing any causal relation between 
war and the production of great work in art and letters. 
They have often coincided, but each has often appeared 
without the other. 

As respects the ethical side of life, soldiering and the 
preparation for soldiering produce a type of character 
marked by discipline and the habit of obedience. The 
Spartans were in the ancient world the example of a 
people who excelled in these qualities, uniting to them, 
however, an equally marked insensibility to the charms 
of poetry and art. They produced no literature, and 
seemed to value none except martial songs. Discipline 
is valuable, but it implies some loss of individuality; 
obedience is useful, but (except with the higlily intelligent) 
it involves some loss of initiative. If it increases phys- 
ical coiu-age, it may depress that moral courage which 
recognizes allegiance to Right rather than to the Might of 
the state. War gives opportunities for the display, by 
those serving in the field, of some exalted virtues, as cotu"- 
age, self-sacrifice, devotion to the common cause. So, 
likewise, does religious persecution. Tennyson, writing 
his Maud at the beginning of the Crimean War, seems to 
have expected these virtues to be evoked by that war, to 
pervade the whole people, and to effect a moral regenera- 
tion of Britain. Did that happen? And if it happened, 
did it endure? Did it happen in other countries where it 
was expected, as, for instance, in the United States after 
the Civil War? Is such regeneration a natural fruit of war? 

25 



The conr^^and the potziotisai of those who fig^ are 
sqjleiidid, but lie have to tfamk cC the nation as a wiioie, 
non-oomhatants as well as combatants. May not much 
depesid on the causes winch have bfoog^t about an appeal 
to anns and the motives wbkh inspire the combatants? 
A war of oppression, stimulated by national pride and 
ambition, may have a different mocal effect from one that 
is nndotaken to repd. a wanton attack, to defend an 
innocent neutral state, to save peaceful peoples from a 
dai^^ to their liberties, and protect the whole world 
from a menace to the sacred principles c^ jtistice and 
humanity. 

BdBeving tiie war we are now waging to be such a war, 
we cannot but hope that the tm^ieikable sufferings and 
soiiuws it has tnought to nearly evoy home in Britain 
may be largdy compensated by a pnrtfjring of the heart, 
an increased spirit of sdlf-sacnfice, and a raising of our 
national and personal ideals. 

On a review of the wiide matter, it will appear that war, 
since it is destruction, does not increase, but reduces, 
national wealth, and thoefore cannot be a direct cause of 
matoial progress. As it exalts physical strength and the 
principle of Force as against the mind and the love of 
truth and the pleasures of thought and loKmdedge, war, 
except so far as the particular departmoit of military 
science is concerned, cannot be deraned a cause of intel- 
lectual pr o gre s s. As it depresses the individual and exalts 
the State, the thing we c^ Militarism places the concep- 
tion of liifis^ above that of R^t, and creates a type ci 
dasaacter in which the hardier, and what one may call 
the heathen, virtues are exalted above those which the 
Gospd has taught and through which the moral elevation 
of the worid has been secured. 

What, then, are the causes to which the progress of 
mankind is due? It is due partly, no doubt, if not to 
strife, to competition. But chiefly to thought, which, as 
we have seen, is more often hindered than helped by war. 
It is the races that know how to think, rather than the far 
more Tttwaeroas races that exoe^ in fighting rather than in 

26 



i 



thinking, that have led the world. Thought, in the form 
of invention and inquiry, has given us those improvements 
in the arts of life and in the knowledge of natvu-e by which 
material progress and comfort have been obtained. 
Thought has produced literature, philosophy, art, and 
(when intensified by emotion) reHgion — all the things 
that make life worth Hving. Now, the thought of any 
people is most active when it is brought into contact with 
the thought of another, because each is apt to lose its 
variety and freedom of play when it has worked too long 
upon familiar lines and flowed too long in the channels 
it has deepened. Hence, isolation retards progress, while 
intercoiu^e quickens it. 

The great creative epochs have been those in which one 
people of natural vigor received an intellectual impulse, 
from the ideas of another, as happened when Greek 
culture began to penetrate Italy, and, thirteen centuries 
later, when the Hterature of the ancients began to w^ork on 
the nations of the mediaeval w^orld. 

Such contact, wnth the process of learning which follows 
from it, may happen in or through war, but it happens far 
oftener in peace; and it is in peace that men have the 
time and the taste to profit fully by it. A study of 
history will show that we may, with an easy conscience, 
dismiss the theory of Treitschke — that war is a health- 
gi\'ing tonic which Providence must be expected constantly 
to offer to the human race for its own good. Apart 
altogether from the hopes we entertain for the \Tictor5'' 
in this war of a cause which we beheve to be just, we may 
desire in the interests of all mankind that its issue should 
discredit by defeat a theory wiiich is noxious as well as 
baseless. The future progress of mankind is to be sought, 
not through the strifes and hatreds of the nations, but 
rather by their friendly cooperation in the healing and 
enlightening w^orks of peace and in the grc\\i:h of a spirit 
of friendship and mutual confidence which may remove 
the causes of war. 



27 



LIST OF PUBLICATIONS 

Nos. 1-83 (April, 1907, to December, 1914). Including papers by Baron d'Estoumelle3 
de Constant, George Trumbull Ladd, Elihu Root, Barrett Wendell, Charles E. Jefferson, 
Seth Low, William James, Andrew Carnegie, Pope Pius X, Heinrich Lammasch, Norman 
Angell, Charles W. Eliot, Sir Oliver Lodge, Lord Haldane and others. A list of titles and 
authors will be sent on application. 

83. Official Documents Bearing upon the European War. Series I. 

I. The Austro- Hungarian Note to Servia. 
II. The Servian Reply. 

III. The British White Paper. 

IV. The German White Book. October, 1914. 

84. Additional Official Documents Bearing upon the European War. Series II. 

I. Speech of the Imperial Chancellor to Reichstag, August 4, 1914- 

II. Speech of the Prime Minister to House of Commons, August 6, 1914. 

III. The Russian Orange Book. 

IV. The Original Texts of the Austrian Note of July 23, 1914, and the Servian 

Reply of July 25, 1914, with annotations. November, 1914. 

85. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. III. 

I. The Neutrality of Belgium and Luxemburg. 
II. Address of the President of the Coimcil to the French Senate, August 4, 1914. 

III. Official Japanese Documents. 

IV. Address to the People by the Emperor of Germany. December, 1914. 

86. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. IV. 

I. Turkish Official Documents. November, 1914- 
II. Speech of the Imperial Chancellor to the Reichstag. December 2, 1914. 
III. The Belgian Gray Book. (July 24, Augiist 29, 1914.) January, igiS- 

87. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. V. 

The French Yellow Book, Translated and Prepared for Parliament by the British 
Government. February, 1915. 

88. Docimients Regarding the European War. Series No. V. 

The French Yellow Book, Translated and Prepared for Parliament by the British 
Government. March, 1915. 

89. Docimients Regarding the European War. Series No. VI. 

The Austrian Red Book, Official Translation Prepared by the Austrian Govern- 
ment. April, 1913. 

90. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. VII. 

The Serbian Blue Book. May, 1913. 
28 



LIST OF PUBLICATIONS— Con/inue^ 

91. The Fundamental Causes of the World War, by Alfred H. Fried. June, 19 15. 

92. To the Citizens of the Belligerent States, by G. Heymans. July, 1913. 

93. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. VIII. 

Italy's Green Book, Translation approved by Royal Italian Embassy, Washing- 
ton, D. C. August, 1915. 

94. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. IX. 

Official Correspondence Between the United States and Germany. 
I. Declaration of London, August 6, 191.1. — October 24, 1914. 
II. Contraband of War, September 4, 1914 — ^April 26, 1015- 

III. Restraints of Commerce, February 6, 1915 — September 7. 1915. 

IV. Case of the William P. Frye, March3i.i9i5— July 30,1915- September, 1915- 

95. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. X. 

Official Correspondence Between the United States and Great Britain. 
I. Declaration of London, August 6, 1914— October 22, 1914. 
II. Contraband of War, August 5, 1914 — April 10, 1915. 

III. Restraints of Commerce, December 26, 1914 — July 31, 1913. 

IV. Case of the Wilhelmina, February 15, 1915 — April 8, 1915- October, 191S. 

96. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. XI. 

I. Secretary Bryan's Letter to Senator Stone Regarding Charges of Partiality 
Shown to Great Britain, January 20, 1915. 
II. The Austro-Hungarian Minister for Foreign Affairs to Ambassador Pen- 
field, June 29, 19 1 5. 
III. The Secretary of State to Ambassador Penfield, August 12, 191S. 
November, 1915. 

97. Referendum on the Report of the Special Committee on Economic Results of the 

War and American Business. Reprinted by permission of the Chamber of 
Commerce of the United States. December, 191s- 

98. The Land Where Hatred Expires, by Albert Leon Gu6rard. January, 19 16. 

99. America's Opinion of the World War, by Eduard Bernstein. Translated by 

John Mez. February, 1916. 

100. International Cooperation, by John Bassett Moore. The Outlook for Inter- 

national Law, by Elihu Root. March, 1916. 

101. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. XII. 

Statement of Measures Adopted to Intercept the Sea-Borne Commerce of Ger- 
many. Presented to Both Houses of Pariiament by Command of His Majesty, 
January, 19 16. 
Great Britain's Measures Against German Trade. A Speech Delivered by the 
Rt. Hon. Sir E. Grey, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in the House of 
Commons, on the 26th of January, 1916. April, 1916. 

29 



LIST OF PUBLICATIONS— Con/mue</ 

102. Super-Resistance, by Harold C. Goddard. May, 19 16. 

103. German White Book oa Armed Merchantmen. June, 1916. 

104. Speech of Imperial German Chancellor before the Reichstag, on April S, 1916. 

July, 1916. 

105. Inter Arma Veritas, by William Allan Neilson. August, 1916. 

106. The Proposal for a League to Enforce Peace. Affirmative — William Howard 

Taft; Negative — William Jennings Bryan. September, 1916. 

107. Nationality and Beyond, by Nicholas Murray Butler. Do We Want Half the 

Hemisphere? By Brander Matthews. October, 1916. 

Special Bulletins: 

The War and Peace Problem, Material for the Study of International Polity, by 
John Mez. February, 1915. 

Syllabus of Lectures on the War and Peace Problem for the Study of International 

Polity, by John Mez. February, 1915. 
A Dozen Truths About Pacificism, by Alfred H. Fried, translated by John Mez. 

March, 1915. 

Educational Factors Toward Peace, by Leon Fraser. April, 1915. 

A Brief Outline of the Nature and Aims of Pacifism, by Alfred H. Fried. Trans- 
lated by John Mez. April, 1915. 

Internationalism. A list of Current Periodicals selected and annotated by Fred- 
erick C. Hicks. May, 1915. 

Preparedness as the Cartoonists See It, with introduction by Charles E. Jefferson. 
May, 1913. 

Spirit of Militarism and Non-Military Preparation for Defense, by John Lovejoy 
Elliott and R. Tait McKenzie. June, 1915. 

Existing Alliances and a League of Peace, by John Bates Clark. July, 1915. 

Is Commerce War? By Henry Raymond Mussey. January, 1916. 

Peace Literature of the War, by John Mez. January, 1916. 

Is There a Substitute for Force in International Relations? by Suh Hu. Prize 
essay, International Polity Club Competition, awarded June, 1916. 

Toward an Enduring Peace. A Symposium of Peace Proposals and Programs, 
1914-1916, compiled by Randolph S. Bourne, with an introduction by Franklin 
H. Giddings. 336 pages: for Special Distribution. October, 1916. 

Up to the limit of the editions printed, any one of the above will be sent postpaid upon 
receipt of a request addressed to the Secretary of the American Association for International 
Conciliation, Postoffice Sub-station 84, New York, N. Y. 



30 



COUNCIL OF DIRECTION OF THE 
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR INTERNATIONAL CONCILIATION 



Lyuan Abbott, New York. 
Charles Francis Adams, Boston. 
Edwin A. Alderman, Charlottesville, 

Va. 
Robert Bacon, New York. 
Richard Bartholdt, St. Louis, Mo. 
George Blumenthal, New York. 
Clifton R. Breckenridge, Fort Smith, 

Arkansas. 
William J. Bryan, Lincoln, Nebraska. 
T. E. Bcrton, Cleveland, Ohio. 
Nicholas Murray Butler, New York. 
Andrew Carnegie, New York. 
Edward Gary, New York. 
Joseph H. Choate, New York. 
Richard H. Dana, Boston, Mass. 
Arthur L. Dasher, Macon, Ga. 
Horace E. Deming, New York. 
Gano Dunn, New York. 
Charles W. Eliot, Cambridge, Mass. 
John W. Foster, Washington, D. C. 
Austen G. Fox, New York. 
Robert A. Franks, Orange, N. J. 
Robert Garrett, Baltimore, Md. 
Joseph P. Grace, New York. 
John Arthur Greene, New York. 
William J. Holland, Pittsburgh, Pa. 
Hamilton Holt, New York. 
David Starr Jordan, Stanford University, 

Cal. 
J. H. KiRKLAND, Nashville, Tenn. 



Adolph Lewisohn, New York. 

Clarence H. Mackay, New York. 

Theodore Marburg, Baltimore, Md. 

Brander Matthews, New York. 

Silas McBee, New York. 

George B. McClellan, Princeton, N. J. 

Andrew J. Montague, Richmond, Va. 

W. W. Morrow, San Francisco, Cal. 

Levi P. Morton, New York. 

Stephen H. Olin, New York. 

Henry S. Pritchett, New York. 

A. V. V. Raymond, Buffalo, N. Y. 

Ira Remsen, Baltimore, Md. 

James Ford Rhodes, Boston, Mass. 

Elihu Root, Washington, D. C. 

J. G. Schurman, Ithaca, N. Y. 

James Brown Scott, Washington, D. C. 

Isaac N. Seligman, New York. 

Charles Hitchcock Sherrill, New York. 

F. J. V. Skiff, Chicago, III. 

William M. Sloane, New York. 

James Speyer, New York. 

Oscar S. Straus, New York. 

Mrs. Mary Wood Swift, Berkeley, Cal. 

George W. Taylor, Demopolis, Ala. 

O. H. Tittman, Washington, D. C. 

W. H. Tolman, New York. 

Charlemagne Tower, Philadelphia, Pa. 

Edward Tuck, Paris, France. 

George E. Vincent, Minneapolis, Minn. 

William D. Wheelwright, Portland, Orb. 



31 



AMERICAN ASSOCIATION 
FOR INTERNATIONAL CONCILIATION 

Executive Committee 
Nicholas Murray Butler Stephen Henry Olin 

James Speyer Robert A. Franks 

James L. Slayden George Blumenthal 

Joseph P. Grace Gang Dunn 

Secretary 
Frederick P. Keppel 

Assistant Secretary for the Southern States 
Dunbar Rowland 

Director of Pan-American Division 
Peter H. Goldsmith 

Correspondents 

Alfred H. Fried, Vienna, Austria 

Francis W. Hirst, London, England 

T. MiYAOKA, Tokyo, Japan 

Wilhelm Paszkowski, Berlin, Germany 

Organizing Secretaries for South America 

Benjamin Garcia Victorica, American Legation, Buenos Aires 
A. G. Araujo Jorge, Foreign Office, Rio de Janeiro 
Juan Bautista de Lavalle, San Pedro, 88, Lima 



tA^ .:jr ^ 



) 



International Conciliation 

Published monthly by the 
American Association for International Conciliation. 
Entered as second class matter at New York, N. Y., 
Postoffice, February 23, 1909, uiyler act of July 16, 1894 



THE PRINCIPLE OF NATIONALITY 




By 



THEODORE ^Y^BEM' 

Translated h^^obn Me£^p^\[ 3 ^ 1917 



DECEMBER^xf^J^b,^ — *^ ^rC<^ 



No. 109 






American Association for International Conciliation 

Sub-Station 84 (407 West 1 17th Street) 

New York City 



It is the aim of the Association for International Con- 
ciliation to awaken interest and to seek co-operation 
in the movement to promote international good will. 
This movement depends for its ultimate success upon 
increased international understanding, appreciation^ 
and sympathy. To this end, documents are printed 
and widely circulated, giving information as to the 
progress of the movement and as to matters connected 
therewith, in order that individual citizens, the news- 
paper press, and organizations of various kinds may 
have accurate information on these subjects readily 
available. 

The Association endeavors to avoid, as far as 
possible, contentious questions, and in particular 
questions relating to the domestic policy of any given 
nation. Attention is to be fixed rather upon those 
underlying principles of international law, international 
conduct, and international organization, which must 
be agreed upon and enforced by all nations if peaceful 
civilization is to continue and to be advanced. A list 
of publications will be found on pages 27 to 29. 



INTRODUCTION 

In order to present to the readers of this series an 
adequate picture of the progress of thought regarding 
international matters throughout the world today, it is 
necessary from time to time to print articles from the 
pens of individuals frankly favoring one side or another 
in the present European conflict. It is the desire of the 
editors, however, to include only such papers of this kind 
as make positive contributions to the discussion of the in- 
tricate questions involved. The present paper, which will 
be printed in instalments, seems to be of this character. 

The author is Theodore Ruyssen, who was born in Clis- 
son, France, in 1868. After leaving school in 1889, and 
after a study trip through Germany he took up the pro- 
fession of teaching in 1896. He taught philosophy in 
various schools and graduated as Doctor of Philosophy 
with a thesis on "I'Evolution psychologique du Jugement" 
in 1903. He has lectured successively in the universities 
of Aix-en-Provence, Dijon and Bordeaux. At present, 
he occupies the chair of History of Philosophy at the 
University of Bordeaux, 

3 



His principal philosophical publications are : 

Kant, published in Paris, 1904 (which was awarded I 

the prize of the French "Institut"), 
La philosophie de la Paix, 1904, ' 

Schopenhauer, Paris, 1909, 

and numerous articles in the "Revue de Metaphysique et 
de Morale." 

He is the President of the Association La Paix par le 
Droit, the most important peace organization in France, 
which is widely known throughout the world through its 
official organ "La Paix par le Droit," and a member of 
the International Peace Bureau in Berne. 



THE WORLD WAR AND THE PRINCIPLE 
OF NATIONALITY 

In his speech delivered before the House of Com- 
mons on August 6, 1914, in justification of the partici- 
pation of the British Empire in the European War, 
Mr. Asquith, the EngHsh prime minister, expressed him- 
self to this effect: "We are fighting to vindicate the 
principle that the small nationalities are not to be 
crushed, in defiance of international good faith, by the 
arbitrary will of a strong and overmastering power." On 
several occasions, members of the British and the French 
cabinets have emphasize^ the same idea, that the small 
nations, even the weakest among them, have an equal 
right to existence with the greatest, and that it is in 
defense of this right, violated to the injury of Serbia 
and of Belgium, that the allies are risking the lives of 
hundreds of thousands of men. "The people are re- 
solved to dispose of themselves in freedom," proclaims 
M. Viviani. In terms yet more precise, Mr. Lloyd 
George thus defines the object of the war: "This," he 
declares, "is a war of nationalities." No utterance, I 

5 



think, could better characterize the gigantic struggle 
deployed before our eyes throughout the entire European 
continent. 

It is not, or rather it is no longer, only Serbia and 
Belgium which are at stake in the fighting at Artois, in 
the Vosges, and along the Dvina, the Dniester and the 
Isonzo. By far the most striking feature of this war is 
the way in which it has raised, one after another, most 
of the "national" questions of Europe and even of the 
Orient, not only those which yesterday menaced the 
equilibrium of Europe, such as the Balkan problems, but 
even the most ancient of them, slumbering in the ob- 
scurity of the past, and in regard to which public opinion 
has retained only an academic and, so to speak, a con- 
ventional interest. As a matter of fact, who save a few ' 
special students concerned himself in June, 1914, about 
the Polish question or that of Syria? Even among 
those who maintain the honorable tradition of accord- 
ing their sympathy to unjustly treated peoples, how 
many were aware of a Ukrainian, a Ruthenian, a Lithu- 
anian question? 

Thus, through a long train of successive events which 
should be recognized as something more than a mere 
series of accidents, manifold national questions, which 

6 



statesmen and diplomats had attempted to disregard be- 
cause they interfered with their poHtical schemes, have 
entered the war. Already on the 26th of July, 1914, 
the uncompromising ultimatum addressed to Serbia by 
Austria-Hungary gave notice that the Hapsburg Empire 
had determined to begin, beyond Bosnia and Herze- 
govina, the first step of the "advance to the East" 
(Drang nach Osten), and gain a decisive start on the 
road to Salonica; thereby bringing into question the in- 
dependence of Serbia and with it that of Bulgaria and 
Greece, disturbing again the intricate tangle of Balkan 
problems of which the treaty of Bucharest and the Con- 
vention of London had just relieved the wearied hands 
of the diplomats. On August 15th, the Grand Duke 
Con&tantine made a solemn promise to restore to Poland 
her territorial unity as well as her political autonomy. 
A little later, an imperial rescript informed the Russian 
Jews that henceforth they would enjoy an equal posi- 
tion in the Empire with that of Orthodox subjects. By 
the pretensions of certain German publicists the Finnish 
question was discovered as involving a branch of the 
Germanic stock which extends from the Baltic coast to 
the Adriatic. 

With the entrance of Turkey into the war, all the 

7 



national questions of the Orient were again thrown 
open; Russia no longer conceals her intention to con- 
quer Armenia, of which she already holds the Caucasian 
region; Syria and Arabia are growing restless, and, 
finally, with the fate of Constantinople and the Darda- 
nelles, the very existence of the Ottoman Empire, its 
final expulsion from Europe, and, perhaps, its dismem- 
berment in Asia have come into question; this would 
mean the parcelling out of Asia Minor into colonies or 
spheres of influence. More generally, the whole prob- 
lem of the relation of the Moslem to the Christian \yorld 
has risen anew in all its magnitude. The Germans have 
clearly recognized this, and from the first days of the 
war they tried to stir up difficulties for Russia in Persia, 
for England in India and Egypt, for Italy in Tripoli, 
for France in the whole of Northern Africa, up to the 
day when the Ottoman Empire itself was dragged into 
their quarrel. 

This military alliance of the Protestant Kaiser, the 
Catholic Emperor at Vienna, and the Moslem Com- 
mander of the Faithful is a fact of great symbolic sig- 
nificance. Its importance can hardly be exaggerated. It 
demonstrates conclusively — despite what certain Catholic 
writers may have said who saw nothing in the ruins of 

8 



Belgium but an act of Lutheran vandalism — that the 
age of the great religious wars is past and that even 
where religious passion plays a part, as no one will deny 
it does, it is only an auxiliary to national sentiment. 
The alliance of Berlin, Vienna and Constantinople is no 
artificial arrangement, but the expression of the natural 
and necessary solidarity of the three European Empires 
which are drawn together by the one common charac- 
teristic that they have never granted nor desired to grant 
justice to conquered peoples. No doubt one may detect 
certain differences in the rule established by these em- 
pires. That of Austria-Hungary has been the least 
harsh; she has granted parliamentary institutions to 
many nationalities within the dual monarchy and, of the 
three divisions of Poland, Galicia has undoubtedly been 
the best treated. Even Germany has never, like Turkey, 
made wholesale massacre an instrument of government. 
The fact remains, however, that Austria-Hungary, Ger- 
many and Turkey are conglomerations of imperfectly 
absorbed and unequally treated nationalities. None of 
these states has been able to assimilate its conquests. In 
Alsace, in Lorraine, in Schleswig, and in Poland, Ger- 
many, in spite of the most indefatigable efforts, has been 
able to "Germanize" only by importing Germans, by 

9 



expropriating the land owners or by forcing them 
through persecution to expatriate themselves. In the 
Hapsburg monarchy, at least a dozen heterogeneous, 
jealous and hostile nationalities are crowded together, 
none of which has a decisive preponderance over the 
others. As for the Turks, it has been justly said that 
they have been contented to camp, saber in hand, among 
the subjected population. We must, however, do them 
the justice to admit that they have not attempted to 
impose Islamism upon the conquered, and that they have 
shown themselves very tolerant in one respect, that they 
have never made an attempt to win over to their type 
of civilization the Greeks, the Balkan Slavs, the Ar- 
menians, the Christian communities of the Orient. The 
lack of mutual understanding between victors and van- 
quished has remained as profound after six centuries 
of occupation as at the time when the first horsemen, 
coming down from Turkestan, directed their daring raids 
against the Byzantine Empire; and whenever the taxes 
were not paid promptly, or whenever the civil population 
threatened to become rebellious, great hecatombs soon 
restored order among the discontented and gold to the 
public coffers. In the absence of any real fusion of the 
ethnical elements in the three empires into a homoge- 

lO 



neous unity or any voluntary co-operation of the nation- 
alities remaining distinct, it has been necessary to obtain 
unity through force : military force to begin with, there- 
after administrative. Artificial combinations of alien or 
mutually hostile peoples, some of which knew themselves 
to be deprived of the political and even of the civil rights 
accorded to others, Germany, Austria-Hngary and Tur- 
key were doomed to remain military empires, to place 
the army above the civil law, to perpetuate and to renew 
noble castes, one of whose privileges it is to monopolize 
the higher grades of the army, to put this caste and this 
army at the disposal not of the nation but of the ruler, 
and, finally, to make him, notwithstanding certain con- 
cessions to modern parliamentary polity, the arbiter of 
national destiny, the master of war and peace. 

In opposition to this triptych, a view of the "allied" 
forces presents a remarkable unity, despite some incon- 
testable divergences. It is doubtless necessary to avoid 
over-simplified generalizations and merely verbal dis- 
tinctions. It would be false as well as arbitrary to divide 
the contending nations which dispute with each other • 
the empire of the world into the oppressors and the 
defenders of nationality. Germany herself achieved her 
unity in the name of the nationalist principle, and it may 

n 



even be said that, in a certain sense, Pan-Germanism is 
nothing but a monstrous perversion of that principle. 
On the other hand, nobody will be apt to forget that in 
the tragic history of nationality, the record of the allies 
is far from immaculate. Nations without faults exist 
only in legend. The most liberal of western nations, 
England, has borne in her side for centuries the sore 
wound of the Irish question, and the admirable solidarity 
shown by the British Empire today cannot make us for- 
get that on the very eve of war it was an open question 
whether the introduction of Home Rule in Ireland might 
not inflict upon the United Kingdom the horrors of- a 
civil war. France is far from having made such efforts 
to elevate the dignity of her Mohammedan subjects in 
northern Africa as might have been expected from the 
country of the "Rights of Man." As for Russia, not 
even her best friends could forget that during the past 
twenty years she has continuously infringed the liberties 
of Finland by restrictions as unconstitutional and unjust 
as they were tactless, and that her attempts to Russify 
eastern Poland have equalled the German attempts to 
Germanize Prussian Poland. 

. All these facts are only too true and should be frankly 
admitted. But these admissions only add force to the 

13 



statement that, as a whole, the group of allied powers 
represent in their struggle against the empires of armed 
force the continuity of that liberal tradition to which 
the nationalities which were enfranchised in the course 
of the nineteenth century owe their liberation. There 
is hardly a national movement to which France, England 
and Russia, separately or together, have, not given the 
support of their political influence or even of their arms. 
Russia, whatever may have been her faults in respect to 
the Finns, Poles and Jews, has been an indefatigable 
helper in the liberation of the Balkan Slavs. England 
has aided in the freeing of Greece and Bulgaria, and has 
always shown herself the protectress of small states. 
As for France, it is needless to recall what Greece, Bel- 
gium, Roumania and Italy have owed to her in the con- 
quest of their national independence. And where have 
all the patriots who have been persecuted for dreaming 
of the emancipation of their respective nationalities, 
found an asylum? Where were the committees for the 
protection of all the martyred nationalities organized, 
the "Leagues of the Rights of Peoples," the "Nationalist 
Headquarters"? Where are the pamphlets printed, 
where are the periodicals published, which are intended 
to defend before the tribunal of public opinion the inter- 
ns 



ests, so easily forgotten, of the peoples held in bondage ? 
Is it at Berlin? Is it at Vienna? No; but in the two 
capitals which have been equally hospitable to oppressed 
peoples and to "Kings in Exile," London and Paris. 
And for whom, after all, are they fighting today from 
the Yser to the Niemen, from the Adige to the Cau- 
casus? In the first instance, Russia arose to defend 
Serbia, already sacrificed by Europe at the end of the 
second Balkan War, from the menaces of Austria; 
England and France have responded in their turn to 
the pathetic appeal of Belgium, crushed under the heel 
of one of the powers which had guaranteed by their 
signature her neutrality. Thus from the very outset, 
the European war has disclosed its original character, 
which has continually become more apparent up to its 
most recent development; it is a war of nationalities. 
Without question, it is also something more; it has so 
profoundly shaken the old structure of the European 
balance of power that one may well wonder what great 
social, political, economic, or even religious interest there 
is that it has not imperilled. But undeniably it ra.ises 
the following question: Will there be room in Europe, 
in the civilized world of tomorrow, for nationalities to 
enjoy a political existence of their own? 



II ' 
SMALL STATES AND NATIONALITIES 

Let us endeavor to state the problem with precision, 
and, first of all, distinguish it from another question 
with which it has been frequently confounded: that of 
the future of the small States. 

That the position of the small States is, in reality, 
very much the same as that of the nationalities, has been 
clearly demonstrated by the history of the last century. 
In fact, many of the small States of modern Europe 
have been created by the coming into independent polit- 
ical existence of certain nationalities. This has been 
the case in Greece, in the Slav States of the Balkans, in 
the Netherlands, in Norway. As a matter of fact, those 
States which disregard national destinies also make no 
scruple of trampling on the rights of the secondary 
States whenever their own interest is at stake. Germany, 
which holds in vassalage a minority of non-German 
people, was only acting in accord with its political im- 
morality when, in spite of her formal engagements, she 
invaded Luxemburg and Belgium to surprise France on 

1=; 



a slightly defended frontier. As for Austria-Hungary, 
whose very existence depends upon the binding together 
of nationalities sedulously held in subjection, who could 
have expected that she might have been deterred by a 
mere regard for right from striking a blow at Bosnia- 
Herzegovina and Serbia? With both nations — and we 
may add with Turkey — scorn for the weak, the entire 
absence of any scruples or of any generosity towards 
those known or believed to be incapable of resistance, 
the conviction that the strong are destined to exploit, to 
absorb or to crush the small nations as need may direct, 
was bound to lead to an identical policy of arrogant 
protection or cynical coercion with the lesser States and 
with still undeveloped nationalities. It is indeed prob- 
able that, should the war end with a victory for the 
Allies, we should witness the political aspirations of the 
nationalities arising with renewed vigor, and perhaps the 
"Society of Nations" would welcome the advent of some 
new States. 

The fact remains, however, that the States, whether 
they be large or small, are different from nationalities. 
A State may comprise several nationalities (as is the 
case with Austria-Hungary) or else it may include 
among its subjects only a part of one nationality or 

i6 



another; such is the case of contemporary Bulgaria, 
Roumania and Greece. Let us specify the essential 
distinctions. 

The "Society of Nations," which might more accu- 
rately be styled "Society of States," does not number 
more than half a hundred members. The second Peace 
Conference at the Hague in 1907, which was its most 
complete expression, consisted of exactly forty-four 
States, representing nearly the whole of the habitable 
globe. Those which were not represented we may con- 
sider negligible for our purposes: one, the Holy See, 
because whatever its moral authority, it has neither ter- 
ritory nor jurisdiction of its own ; others on account of 
their insignificant size, such as the Republic of San 
Marino; still others in view of their barbaric or semi- 
barbaric condition, such as Abyssinia and the sultanates 
of Asia and of Africa. But it is true that there are a 
very great number of States, some of which are of con- 
siderable importance and even of a high degree of 
civilization, which do not figure among the States rep- 
resented at the Hague. These are the States which are 
subordinated by their constitution to other States which 
represent them diplomatically, such as Finland, or fed- 
erated into a single union and represented by the same 

17 



diplomatic agents : the States of the German Empirt, 
the Swiss cantons, the States of the North American 
RepubHc, or the States of Brazil, etc. As distinguished 
from these States, the forty-four poHtical units which 
made up the Conference of 1907 present a common attri- 
bute which may be summarized in the term sovereignty. 
What does this term imply? To be sovereign means 
to be subject to no other law, internal or external, than 
that decreed by oneself; it means to make oneself the 
source of one's own rights. To the citizen, the sov- 
ereign, whether he be an absolute ruler or the "people" 
themselves, is that social power to which all submit, both 
individual^ and groups of individuals, and which itself 
submits to no other power. No doubt there may exist 
certain obligations in external matters ; there are treaties 
between States, and collective or even universal agree- 
ments, such as the Postal Convention. " Obligations of 
this sort, however, depend entirely upon the voluntary 
assent of the parties concerned. Unquestionably, many 
a treaty of peace, the fruit of an unfortunate war, has 
been imposed by force and those who have signed them 
to their detriment have often done so from a very grave, 
sometimes almost irresistible moral compulsion ; but, 
after all, one can always refuse to make peace; one may 

18 



even, following the heroic example which Belgium and 
Serbia have given to the world, refuse to accept the law 
of the victor, even when the national territory has been 
completely occupied and the national life practically sus- 
pended. The vanquished party who signs a pact signi- 
fying his own loss still acts as a sovereign. Whether 
coerced or not, it is his own will which creates the new 
law. It is his will also which can revoke it. A sovereign 
State may always "denounce" a treaty; pacifically, if 
the renunciation is made after a certain interval agreed 
upon beforehand by both parties; or violently, when it 
is done without previous notice, or if the treaty is 
couched in definite and irrevocable terms, in which case • 
the revocation of the treaty is usually followed by war, 
or at least by a suspension of diplomatic relations, and, 
reciprocally, a war suspends any treaties which the bel- 
ligerents may have concluded with one another. In inter- 
national law, the power to declare war is recognized as 
one of the essential attributes of sovereignty. Another 
attribute, resulting from this, is the right to maintain 
diplomatic representatives in other States commissioned 
to oversee the mutual observance of agreements, and, as 
need arises, to conclude new agreements. 

Thus the law between States is of a purely conven- 

19 



tional character. Nothing binds the sovereign States, 
but the will to observe agreements to which that same 
will had consented. There is no superior power to im- 
pose the law or to guarantee its observance; no regular 
police is organized to enforce its provisions ; this is why, 
as has justly been remarked, international relations are 
in reality anarchistic, and why war, in defiance of all 
reason, remains at once the ultima ratio of sovereigns 
who trample upon the rights of others and of States 
whose rights are disregarded. Although undertaken 
contrary to right by the violent, war is also, for those 
on the defensive, the sole means of safeguarding their 
. rights. 

From these characteristics of sovereignty there fol- 
lows a final attribute which will enable us to distinguish 
States from nationalities, the theoretical equality of 
sovereigns. Strange paradox! The society of nations, 
although it includes States unaffected by or even opposed 
to the principles of the Revolution, like Germany, Austria- 
Hungary, Russia, Turkey, is founded on a strictly demo- 
cratic basis. There can be no hierarchy among sovereign 
powers. The absolute admits of no degrees, and each of 
these States, having the power to make its own laws 
without external control, is, so to speak, an entity, a 

20 



thing-in-itself, variable in extent, in material strength, 
but identical in essence. In the international conferences 
at the Hague, mighty Germany, immense Russia, the 
federation of the forty-eight States of North America, 
discussed on an equality with humble Denmark and the 
little republics of Central America. In the voting, each 
of these States had an equal voice, and, since the de- 
cisions in order to be valid had to be unanimous, the 
negative vote of Nicaragua, of Ecuador, or of Monte- 
negro sufficed to set at naught the unanimity of the 
forty-three other powers. 

This equality of the States, considered as indissoluble, 
moral and juridical persons, was easy to explain at a 
time when such a sovereign as Louis XIV could say 
"L'Etat, c'est moi," in the days of absolute monarchy, 
characterized by the personal power of a single indi- 
vidual, who was himself a sort of divine appointee. 
Then States were equal as were the sovereign persons 
who embodied them. This equality might still be ex- 
plicable in our democratic societies, if the State might 
be considered as the expression of a common will at 
least nearly unanimous and duly ascertained. Then, 
indeed, it could hardly be otherwise. 

But let us examine a little more closely the internal 

21 



structure of the political societies which together con- 
stitute the Society of Nations. What do we find behind 
the external similarity of these theoretically equal units? 
The most disconcerting diversity, sometimes tragic an- 
tagonisms and inexpiable quarrels. Some States have 
attained the most perfect unity; their external unity 
being an exact expression of their internal homogeneity. 
It is a striking fact that these States are not necessarily 
those which have received a common stamp from the 
prolonged influence of a common central power. The 
"United Kingdom" of Great Britain and Ireland is less 
homogeneous than the different American republics. 
Even in France it was the Revolution which consecrated 
the unifying work of the old monarchy and brought 
citizens of every race, every language and every creed 
together in the establishment of a common right. Today 
France is the most perfect example in history of a great 
State whose constitutional unity is the adequate expres- 
sion of a solidarity of will. No doubt French political 
quarrels are very bitter. Five times in the course of 
one century the country has experienced the horrors of 
a civil war. But these quarrels have not assumed a 
sectional or racial character. The anti-revolutionary 
outbreaks in Lyons, Marseilles, Brittany and the Vendee 

22 



have been the last provincial struggle against the central 
power. For a century one may vainly search our his- 
tory for any trace of a separatist or even an autonomist 
movement. Even the projects of administrative decen- 
tralization, elaborated by certain theorists or political 
groups, have never aroused more than a moderate 
amount of interest in the public mind. In the United 
States of America, where the aboriginal population, atro- 
ciously hunted down and slaughtered, has been prac- 
tically exterminated, invaders from every race, detached 
from their native soil by emigration, have been quickly 
assimilated, so that all accept the same speech, the same 
institutions and the same system of education. Surely 
one of the greatest social achievements of the present 
time is the assimilation, in two or three generations, of 
Anglo-Saxon, Irish, German, Scandinavian, Slavic, 
Italian and Jewish elements in the great, boiling melting 
pot of America. However, even in these young societies, 
the power of assimilation has its limit. The black and 
yellow races have remained outside the American polity, 
and the rivalry between Yankees and Asiatics will doubt- 
less be one of the most difficult problems that the twen- 
tieth century will have to solve. 

But let us get back to Europe. France is the only 

23 



great State where an extreme diversity of national ele- 
ments has been melted into a solid and homogeneous 
unity. But this unity is not complete in itself, for 
France has been deprived of two provinces which 
through centuries of union and above all by a common 
sharing of revolutionary enthusiasm had been marked 
by the indelible impress of her spirit, and at many an- 
other point the distinction between pohtical frontiers and 
true national boundaries is evident. 

Sometimes common frontiers enclose peoples whose 
different political status makes some of them privileged 
and others more or less humiliated subjects, deprived 
to a greater or less extent of their rights; such is the 
case of Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia and Turkey. 
On the other hand, certain kindred populations find them- 
selves divided against their will among several States and 
aspire to establish themselves as a single independent 
group; this is true of the Poles, the Serbs and the Ru- 
manians. Such are "the two essential aspects of the prob- 
lem of the nationalities which we can now proceed to 
define. This problem, we may say, arises every time a 
people conscious of its national unity aspires to consecrate 
this unity by securing territorial unity and national 
independence. 

24 



The foregoing considerations enable us to under- 
stand the great interest of the problem of the nationali- 
ties, to define its nature and to recognize its formidable 
difficulties. 

As distinguished from States, "nationalities" are not 
sovereign. That is to say that they have no legal recog- 
nition, they are in the strictest sense, without rights. 
"Without the State, no nationality," wrote Bluntschli in 
his brutal fashion. The individuals who compose them 
may indeed enjoy full civil rights, they may even share 
all the political rights of the States to which they are 
subject ; such is the case of the inhabitants of Alsace and 
Lorraine and the Italians of the Trentino and of Trieste. 
But these rights do not correspond with their will if 
they are separated from the political body which they, 
aspire to join (Alsatians, Lorrainers, Italians of the 
Trentino, Greeks of Asia Minor), or if this political 
body has been forcibly destroyed (Poland), or if it exists 
only as a memory or as a hope (Jews, Armenians). 
They desire to rule themselves, to live their own life, to 
affirm and develop the basic character which' heredity 
and history have given them : they cannot do this and 
submit to a law imposed upon them by a sovereign State. 
As Fichte has forcibly put it: "National life is extin- 

25 



guished as soon as it is innoculated with a foreign life; 
the nation perishes, it is killed, it is wiped out of exist- 
ence ; such a people is stricken from the list of nations." 

How much suffering has been caused by the subjec- 
tion of a people who wish to be free only those can 
realize who reflect upon the passionate struggles which 
the conquest of national independence has caused in his- 
tory. Since the fires of the wars of religion have been 
extinguished, no cause has cost more blood, inspired 
more heroism, raised up from the soil more martyrs. 
To rule oneself, to commit or to refuse to commit one- 
self to a course of action, to unite or to refuse to unite 
with others, is for modern nations as it is for individuals, 
the supreme good, for it is the prerequisite condition of 
other goods, which are priceless especially if they have 
had to be conquered by means of a great struggle. And 
what aggravates the bitterness of subjection for a proud 
people is the fact that almost invariably it implies the 
repression of certain characteristics which are cherished 
for the reason that they are the witness and safeguard 
of national existence. 

What are these characteristics? To determine these, 
v;e must define more closely the idea of nationality itself. 



26 



LIST OF PUBLICATIONS 

Nos. 1-85 (April, 1907. to December, 1914). Including papers by Baron d'Estoumelles 
de Constant, George Trumbull Ladd, Elihu Root, Barrett Wendell, Charles E. Jefferson. 
Seth Low, William James, Andrew Carnegie, Pope Pius X, Heinrich Lammasch, Norman 
Angell, Charles W. Eliot, Sir Oliver Lodge, Lord Haldane and others. A list of titles and 
authors will be sent on application. 

83. Official Documents Bearing upon the European War. Series I. 

L The Austro- Hungarian Note to Servia. 
II. The Servian Reply. 

III. The British White Paper. 

IV. The German White Book. October, 1914. 

84. Additional Official Documents Bearing upon the European War. Series II. 

I. Speech of the Imperial Chancellor to Reichstag, August 4, 1914. 

II. Speech of the Prime Minister to House of Commons, August 6, 1914. 

III. The Russian Orange Book. 

IV. The Original Texts of the Austrian Note of July 23, 1914, and the Servian 

Reply of July 25, 1914, with annotations. November, 1914. 

85. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. III. 

I. The Neutrality of Belgium and Luxemburg. 
II. Address of the President of the Council to the French Senate, August 4, 1914. 

III. Official Japanese Documents. 

IV. Address to the People by the Emperor of Germany. December, 19 14. 

86. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. IV. 

I. Turkish Official Documents. November, 1914. 

II. Speech of the Imperial Chancellor to the Reichstag. December 2, 1914. 
III. The Belgian Gray Book. (July 24, August 29, 1914.) January, 1913. 

87. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. V. 

The French Yellow Book, Translated and Prepared for Parliament by the British 
Government. February, 1915. 

88. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. V. 

The French Yellow Book, Translated and Prepared for Parliament by the British 
Government. March, 1913. 

89. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. VI. 

The Austrian Red Book, Official Translation Prepared by the Austrian Govern- 
ment. April, 1913. 

90. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. VII. 

The Serbian Blue Book. May, 1913. 
27 



LIST OF PUBLICATIONS— Con/muet/ 

91. The Fundamental Causes of the World War, by Alfred H. Fried. June, 1915. \ 
93. To the Citizens of the Belligerent States, by G. Heymans. July, 1915. 

93. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. VIII. 

Italy's Green Book, Translation approved by Royal Italian Embassy, Washing- 
ton, D. C. August, 191S. 

94. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. IX. 

Official Correspondence Between the United States and Germany. 
I. Declaration of London, August 6, 1914 — October 24, 1914. 
II. Contraband of War, September 4, 1914 — April 26, 1015. 

III. Restraints of Commerce, February 6, 1915 — September 7, 1913. 

IV. Case of the William P. Frye, March3i,i9i5— July 30,1913- September, 1915. 

95. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. X. 

Official Correspondence Between the United States and Great Britain. 
I. Declaration of London, August 6, 1914 — October 22, 1914. 
II. Contraband of War, August 3, 1914 — April 10, 1913. 

III. Restraints of Commerce, December 26, 1914 — July 31, 1913. 

IV. Case of the Wilhelmina, February 15, 1915 — April 8, 1915. October, 1915. 

96. Documents Regarding the European War. Series No. XI. 

I. Secretary Bryan's Letter to Senator Stone Regarding Charges of Partiality 
Shown to Great Britain, January 20, 1915. 
II. The Austro- Hungarian Minister for Foreign Afifairs to Ambassador Pen- 
field, June 29, 1915. 
III. The Secretary of State to Ambassador Penfield, August 12, 1915. 
November, 19 15. 

97. Referendum on the Report of the Special Committee on Economic Results of the 

War and American Business. Reprinted by permission of the Chamber of 
Commerce of the United States. December, 1915. 

98. The Land Where Hatred Expires, by Albert L^on Gu^rard. January, 1916. 

99. America's Opinion of the World War, by Eduard Bernstein. Translated by 

John Mez. February, 1916. 

100. International Cooperation, by John Bassett Moore. The Outlook for Inter- 
national Law, by Elihu Root. March, 1916. 

lOi. Documents Regarding the Etiropean War. Series No. XII. 

Statement of Measures Adopted to Intercept the Sea-Borne Commerce of Ger- 
many. Presented to Both Houses of Parliament by Command of His Majesty, 
January, 1916. 
Great Britain's Measures Against German Trade. A Speech Delivered by the 
Rt. Hon. Sir E. Grey, Secretary of State for Foreign Aflairs, in the House of 
Commons, on the 26th of January, 1916. April, 1916. 

28 i 



LIST OF PUBLICATIONS— Con//nuc(/ 

' 102. Super-Resistance, by Harold C. Goddard. May, 1916. 

103. German White Book on Armed Merchantmen. June, 1916. 

104. Speech of Imperial German Chancellor before the Reichstag, on April 5, 1916. 

July, 1916. 

105. Inter Anna Veritas, by William Allan Neilson. August, 1916. 

106. The Proposal for a League, to Enforce Peace. Affirmative — William Howard 

Taft; Negative — William Jennings Bryan. September, 1916. 

107. Nationality and Beyond, by Nicholas Murray Butler. Do We Want Half the 

Hemisphere? By Brander Matthews. October, 1916. 

108. War and Human Progress, by James Bryce. November, 1916. 

109. The World War and the Principle of Nationality, by Theodore Ruyssen. Trans- 

lated by John Mez. December, 1916. 

Special Bulletins: 

The War and Peace Problem, Material for the Study of International Polity, by 

John Mez. February, 1915. 
Syllabus of Lectures on the War and Peace Problem for the Study of International 

Polity, by John Mez. February, 1915. 
A Dozen Truths About Pacificism, by Alfred H. Fried, translated by John Mez. 

March, 1915. 

Educational Factors Toward Peace, by Leon Eraser. April, 1915. 

A Brief Outline of the Nature and Aims of Pacifism, by Alfred H. Fried. Trsins- 
lated by John Mez. April, 1915. 

Internationalism. A list of Current Periodicals selected and annotated by Fred- 
erick C. Hicks. May, 1913. 

Preparedness as the Cartoonists See It, with introduction by Charles E. Jefferson. 
May, 1915. 

Spirit of Militarism and Non-Military Preparation for Defense, by John Lovejoy 
Elliott and R. Tait McKenzie. June, 1915. 

Existing Alliances and a League of Peace, by John Bates Clark. July, 1915. 

Is Commerce War? By Henry Raymond Mussey. January, 1916. 

Peace Literature of the War, by John Mez. January, 1916. 

Is There a Substitute for Force in International Relations? by Suh Hu. Prize 
essay, International Polity Club Competition, awarded June, 1916. 

Toward an Enduring Peace. A Symposium of Peace Proposals and Programs, 
1914-1916, compiled by Randolph S. Bourne, with an introduction by Franklin 
H. Giddings. 336 pages: for Special Distribution. October, 1916. 



Up to the limit of the editions printed, any one of the above will be sent postpaid upon 
receipt of a request addressed to the Secretary of the American Association for International 
Conciliation, Postoffice Sub-station 84, New York, N. Y. 

29 



i 



COUNCIL OF DIRECTION OF THE 
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR INTERNATIONAL CONCIUATION 



Lyuan Abbott, New York. 

Edwin A. Alderman, Charlottesville, Va. 

Robert Bacon, New York. 

Richard Bartholdt, St. Louis, Mo. 

George Blumenthal, New York. 

Clifton R. Breckenridge, Fort Smith, 

Arkansas. 
William J. Bryan, Lincoln, Nebraska. 
T. E. Burton, Cleveland, Ohio. 
Nicholas Murray Butler, New York. 
Andrew Carnegie, New York. 
Edward Gary, New York. 
Joseph H. Choate, New York. 
Richard H. Dana, Boston, Mass. 
Arthur L. Dasher, Macon, Ga. 
Horace E. Deming, New York. 
Gano Dunn, New York. 
Charles W. Eliot, Cambridge, Mass. 
John W. Foster, Washington, D. C. 
Austen G. Fox, New York. 
Robert A. Franks, Orange, N. J. 
Robert Garrett, Baltimore, Md. 
Joseph P. Grace, New York. 
John Arthur Greene, New York. 
WiLUAM J. Holland, Pittsburgh, Pa. 
Hamilton Holt, New York. 
David Starr Jordan, Stanford University, 

Gal. 
J. H. KiRKLAND, Nashville, Tenn. 
Adolph Lewisohn, New York. 



Clarence H. Mackay, New York. 

Theodore Marburg, Baltimore, Md. 

Brander Matthews, New York. 

Silas McBee, New York. 

George B. McClellan, Princeton, N. J. 

Andrew J. Montague, Richmond, Va. 

W. W. Morrow, San Francisco, Gal. 

Levi P. Morton, New York. 

Stephen H. Oun, New York. 

Henry S. Pritchett, New York. 

A. V. V. Raymond, Buffalo, N. Y. 

Ira Remsen, Baltimore, Md. 

James Ford Rhodes, Boston, Mass. 

Elihu Root, Washington, D. C. 

J. G. Schurman, Ithaca, N. Y. 

James Brown Scott, Washington, D. C. 

Isaac N. Seligman, New York. 

Charles Hitchcock Sherrill, New York. 

F. J. V. Skiff, Chicago, III. 

William M. Sloane, New York. 

James Speyer, New York. 

Oscar S. Straus, New York. 

Mrs. Mary Wood Swift, Berkeley, Cal. 

George W. Taylor, Demopolis, Ala. 

O. H. Tittman, Washington, D. C. 

W. H. ToLMAN, New York. 

Charlemagne Tower, Philadelphia, Pa. 

Edward Tuck, Paris, France. 

George E. Vincent, Minneapolis, Minn. 

William D. Wheelwright, Portland, Ork. 



30 



li TERNATIONAL CONCILIATION 



DOCUMENTS 

OF THE 

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION 

FOR 

INTERNATIONAL CONCILIATION 
1917 

N66, no ' '?/ 




AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR INTERNATIONAL CONCILIATION 
SUB-STATION 84 (407 WEST II7TH STREET) 
NEW YORK CITY 
I918 



It is the aim of the Association for International Con- 
ciliation to awaken interest and to seek cooperation in the 
movement to promote international good will. This 
movement depends for its ultimate success upon increased 
international understanding, appreciation, and sympathy. 
To this end, documents are printed and widely circulated, 
giving information as to the progress of the movement and 
as to matters connected therewith, in order that individual 
citizens, the newspaper press, and organizations of various 
kinds may have accurate information on these subjects 
readily available. 

The Association endeavors to avoid, as far as possible, 
contentious questions, and in particular questions relating 
to the domestic policy of any given nation. Attention is to 
be fixed rather upon those underlying principles of inter- 
national law, international conduct, and international 
organization, which must be agreed upon and enforced by 
all nations if peaceful civilization is to continue and to be 
advanced. A list of publications will be found on pages 
281 to 288. 



CONTENTS 

29o. Page 

iio. Official Documents Looking Toward Peace, 
Series No. I, January, 191 7 

1. Speech of the Imperial German Chancellor be- 
fore the Main Committee of the Reichstag on 
November 9, 1916 7 

2. Notes of the Central Powers 15 

3. Replies of the Allied Nations to the Notes of the 
Central Powers 23 

4. German Note concerning the Reply of the En- 
tente to the German Peace Proposals, January 

II, 1917 34 

Appendix — Speech of Viscount Grey before the 
Foreign Press Association on October 24, 19 16 . 37 

111, Official Documents Looking Toward Peace, 
Series No. II, February, 1917 

1. President Wilson's Note to the Belligerent Na- 
tions, December 18, 1916 47 

2. German Note of December 26, 1916, Replying to 
President Wilson's Note of December 18, 1916 . 51 

3. Reply of the Entente Allies to President Wilson's 
Note, January 10, 1917 52 

Reponse des gouvernements allies a la note 
americaine du 19 decembre 1916. '' 55 

4. Note from Great Britain Concerning Peace, 
Sent in Amplification of Allied Reply to Presi- 
dent Wilson, January 13, 191 7 58 

5. President Wilson's Address to the Senate, Janu- 
ary 22, 191 7 62 

112. What Is A Nationality? Part II of the Prin- 
ciple OF Nationality, by Theodore Ruyssen. 
March, 1917 71 



No. Page 

113. The Bases of an Enduring Peace, by Franklin 

H. GiDDiNGS. April, 1917 97 

114. Documents Regarding the European War. 
Series No. XV. The Entry of the United 
States. May, 191 7 

1. President Wilson's Address to the Congress, 
April 2, 1917 113 

2. Joint Resolution of the Congress, April 6, 1917 . 121 

3. Proclamation of the President, April 6, 191 7 . . 122 

4. Mayor Mitchel's Proclamation of April 6, 1917 . 126 

5. President Wilson's Address to His Fellow Coun- 
trymen, April 16, 1917 127 

115. The War and the Colleges, by Newton D. 
Baker. June, 1917 133 

116. The Treaty Rights of Aliens, by William How- 
ard Taft. July, 1917 143 

117. The Effect of Democracy on International 
Law, by Elihu Root. August, 19 17 153 

118. The Problems of Nationality, Part HI of the 
Principle of Nationality, by Theodore Ruyssen. 
September, 1917 171 

119. Official Documents Looking Toward Peace, 
Series No. HL October, 19 17 

1. Message from His Holiness Benedictus XV, Pope 191 

2. Reply on Behalf of the United States .... 194 

3. The German Reply 197 

4. The Austrian Reply 200 

120. The United States and Great Britain, by Walter 
H. Page. The British Commonwealth of Na- 
tions, by Lieutenant-General J. C. Smuts. 
America and Freedom, by Viscount Grey. No- 
vember, 1917 205 

121. The Conference on the Foreign Relations of 
the United States. An Experiment in Edu- 
cation, BY Stephen Pierce Duggan. December, 
1917 233 



r 



International Conciliation 



Published monthly by the 
American Association for International Conciliation. 
Entered as second class matter at New York, N. Y., 
Postoffice, February 23, 1909, under act of July 16, 1894. 



OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS 
LOOKING TOWARD PEACE 

Series I 




JANUARY, 191 7 
No. no 



AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR INTERNATIONAL CONCILIATION 

SUB-STATION 84 (407 WEST II7TH STREET) 

NEW YORK CITY 



SOURCES 

I. Speech of the Imperial German Chancellor before the Msiin Committee 
of the Reichstag on November 9, 1916 — New York Times, January 7, 
1917 

II. Text of the Teutonic Notes to the Neutral Powers and the Pope — New 
York Times, December 13, 1916 

Austria's Separate Statement — New York Times, December 13, 1916 

Speech of the Imperial German Chancellor before the Reichstag on 
December 12, 1916 — New York Times, December 13, 1916 

III. Replies of the Allied Nations to the Notes of the Central Powers 

1. Resolution of the Russian Duma, December 15. 1916 — New York 
Times, December 16, 1916 

2. Speech of Premier Briand before the Chamber of Deputies on 
December 13, 1916 — Le Temps, December 15, 1916 

3. Speech of the Prime Minister of Great Britain before the House of 
Commons on December 19, 1916 — New York Times, December 20, 
1916 

4. Reply of the Entente Allies to the Central Powers, December 30, 
1916 — New York Times, December 31, 1916 

IV. German Note concerning the Reply of the Entente to the German Peace 
Proposals, January 11, 1917 — New York Times, January 12, 1917 

Appendix 

Speech of Viscount Grey before the Foreign Press Association on October 
24. 1916 — London Times, October 24, 1916 



I 

speech of the Imperial German Chancellor Before 
the Main Committee of the Reichstag on 
November 9, 19 16 

The exhaustive debates which have taken place in the chief com- 
mittee during the course of the last few weeks have in the end always 
turned on questions regarding the prosecution and the termination 
of the war. On the enemy's side they ysually speak about the prose- 
cution of the war. Lord Grey also spoke of it in his speech at the 
banquet to the Foreign Press Association.* The British Minister then 
said that there was one thing which deserved to be kept in mind, 
namely, that one could not revert too often to the consideration of 
the origin of the war, because that origin would have its influence on 
the conditions of peace. 

In view of the fundamental importance which Lord Grey has again 
recently attached to this question of peace conditions, and which we, 
too, have attached to it, I am obliged to state the facts in order to 
disperse the clouds with which our enemies endeavor to disguise the 
real situation. 

In reply, I can only repeat what is known. The act which made 
war inevitable was the Russian general mobilization, which was 
ordered on the night of July 30-31, 1914. Russia, England, France, 
and the entire world knew that this step must make further waiting 
impossible for us. Even in England people are beginning to under- 
stand the fateful significance of the Russian mobilization. The truth 
is coming to light. An English professor of world fame wrote some 
time ago that many people would think differently about the end of 
the war if they were better informed about its beginning, especially 
about the fact of the Russian mobilization. 

No wonder, then, that Lord Grey, in his recent speech, could not 
pass the Russian mobilization unnoticed, but felt himself obliged to 
speak of it. He could no longer deny that the Russian mobilization 
preceded the German and the Austrian mobilization, but as he 
desires to remove all blame for the war from the Entente, he makes 

1 See Appendix 

[3] 



a daring endeavor by means of quite a new version of the case, to 
represent the Russian mobilization as Germany's work. 

Lord Grey's explanation is that Russia ordered her first mobiliza- 
tion only after a report had appeared in Germany that Germany 
had ordered a mobilization, and after this report had been telegraphed 
to Petrograd. 

It took about two and a quarter years for Lord Grey to discover 
this interpretation, which is as new as it is objectively false, of the 
cause of the war. The occurrence to which he alluded is well known. 
The document which forms the basis of his proof is an extra edition 
of the Berlin Lokal-Anzeiger. You will remember, gentlemen, per- 
haps that on Thursday, July 30, 1914, in the early afternoon, the 
Lokal-Anzeiger issued a false report in an extra edition that the Em- 
peror had ordered a mobilization. You also know that the sale of 
this extra edition was at once stopped by the police, and the avail- 
able copies were seized. I can also declare that the Foreign Secretary 
immediately informed the Russian Ambassador, and simultaneously 
all other Ambassadors, by tflephone, that the news issued by the 
Lokal-Anzeiger was false. The Russian Embassy was also informed 
as soon as possible from the Lokal-Anzeiger's office that there had 
been a mistake. 

I can further confirm that the Russian Ambassador, immediately 
after the issue of the extra edition, telegraphed a cipher message to 
Petrograd, which, according to the Russian Orange Book, read as 
follows: 

"I learn that an order for the mobilization of the German Army and 
fleet has just been published." 

But this telegram, after Herr von Jagow's telephonic explanation, 
was followed by a second telegram "en clair," which read as follows: 

"Please consider my last telegram canceled (nichtig). Explanation 
follows." 

A few minutes later the Russian Ambassador sent a third cipher 
telegram, which, according to the Russian Orange Book, said that 
the German Foreign Minister had just telephoned to him that the 
news of the mobilization of the army and fleet was false, and that the 
extra edition in question had been seized. The immediate interven- 
tion of Herr von Jagow, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, 
in order to rectify the false news — an intervention which in the 
official Russian Orange Book is confirmed by the telegram of M. 
Sverbejeff, the Russian Ambassador — of itself contradicts the asser- 
tion of Lord Grey that we intentionally desired to deceive Russia 
for the purpose of bringing about a mobiUzation. I can, however, 
also confirm, according to investigations of the Imperial Postal 
Administration concerning the periods of the sending of the Russian 

[4] 



Ambassador's three telegrams, that these must have arrived in 
Petrograd almost simultaneously. 

The Russian Government itself, which after all, must be best 
acquainted with the reasons for its mobilization, never had an idea 
of explaining its fateful step by appealing to the Lokal-Anzeiger's 
extra edition. Lord Grey, I assume, will not desire to reject the Czar 
as a witness. On Friday, July 31, at 2 o'clock in the afternoon, when 
the mobilization order had already been issued to all the Russian 
forces, the Czar telegraphed in reply to the Kaiser's last appeal for 
peace : 

"It is technically impossible to discontinue our military prepara- 
tions, which have become necessary owing to Austria-Hungary's 
mobilization." 

No mention of the Lokal-Anzeiger. No mention of the German 
mobilization. 

As early as July 29, Russia had already answered this measure with 
the mobilization of thirteen army corps. After July 29, Austria- 
Hungary had taken no further military measures which could have 
furnished Russia with any grounds for a general mobilization, which 
was equivalent to a declaration of war. Only after the general 
mobilization had taken place in Russia did Austria-Hungary, on the 
morning of July 31, also proceed to a general mobilization. We our- 
selves even then exercised forbearance and patience to the utmost 
limits of consideration for our own existence and our duty toward 
our allies. As far back as July 29, when Russia mobilized against 
Austria-Hungary, we ourselves could have mobilized. The text of 
our Treaty of Alliance with Austria-Hungary was known, and nobody 
could have considered our mobilization aggressive. We did not do it. 

But to the news of the Russian general mobilization we at first 
replied only with the announcement of a state of affairs threatening 
danger of war which did not yet signify mobilization. We informed 
the Russian Government, and added that mobilization must follow 
if Russia did not cease every war measure against us and Austria- 
Hungary within twelve hours, and give us a definite declaration in 
regard to this. We gave Russia thereby, even when war seemed 
already inevitable owing to her fault, another opportunity to come 
to her senses, and even at the last moment to save the peace. By this 
delay we also gave Russia's allied friends the world-historical oppor- 
tunity to influence Russia in favor of peace. 

It was in vain. Russia left us without a reply, and England per- 
sisted in silence toward Russia. France, through the mouth of her 
Premier, on the evening of July 31, simply denied to our Ambassador 
the fact of the Russian mobilization, and ordered her own mobiliza- 
tion some hours earlier than when we ourselves had proceeded to 
mobilize. Moreover, as regards the alleged defensive character of 

[5] 



10 



the Russian complete mobilization, I will here emphatically declare 
that on the outbreak of war in 1914 a general instruction of the 
Russian Government issued in 1912 for the contingency of mobiliza- 
tion was in force, which, word for word, contains the following 
passage by the All-Highest: 

"It is ordered that the announcement of mobilization is at the same 
time an announcement of war against Germany." Against Ger- 
many! In 1912, against Germanyl 

It is incomprehensible how, in view of these documentary facts. 
Lord Grey can come before the world and his own country with the 
story of a manoeuvre by which we enticed the pacific Russian into 
mobilization against his own will by grossly deluding him about our 
own measures. No! The truth is, Russia would never have decided 
on the fateful step if she had not been encouraged to it from the 
Thames by acts of commission and omission. 

I recall the actual situation at the time when Russia issued the 
order for a general mobilization. The instructions which I gave our 
Ambassador in Vienna on July 30 are known. Lord Grey also well 
knows that I retransmitted to Vienna with the most peremptory 
recommendation the mediation proposal which he made to our 
Ambassador on July 29, and which appeared to me a suitable basis 
for the maintenance of peace. At that time I telegraphed to Vienna: 

"Should the Austro-Hungarian Government refuse all mediation 
we are confronted with a conflagration in which England would go 
against us, and Italy and Rumania, according to all indications, would 
not be with us; so that with Austria-Hungary we should confront 
three great powers. Germany as the result of England's hostility, 
would have to bear the chief brunt of the fight. The political prestige 
of Austria-Hungary, the honor of her arms, and her justified claims 
against Serbia can be sufficiently safeguarded by the occupation of 
Belgrade or other places. We, therefore, urgently and emphatically 
ask the Vienna Cabinet to consider the acceptance of mediation on 
the proposed conditions. Responsibility for the consequences which 
may otherwise arise must be extraordinarily severe for Austria- 
Hungary and ourselves." 

The Austro-Hungarian Government acceded to our urgent repre- 
sentations by giving its Ambassador in Berlin the following instruc- 
tion: 

"I ask your Excellency most sincerely to thank Herr von Jagow, 
the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, for the information given 
through Herr von Tschirschki, arid to declare to him that despite the 
change in the situation which has since arisen through the Russian 
mobilization we are quite ready to consider the proposals of Sir 
Edward Grey for a settlement between us and Serbia. A condition 
of our acceptance is, of course, that our military action against Serbia 

16] 



II 



should meanwhile proceed, and that the English Cabinet should 
induce the Russian Government to bring to a standstill the Russian 
mobilization directed against us, in which case also we, as a matter 
of course, will at once cancel our defensive counter-measures forced 
upon us in Galicia." 

Against this I place the following steps of Lord Grey. On July 27, 
1914, in reply to a remark of the Russian Ambassador at London that 
the impression in German and Austro-Hungarian circles was that 
England would remain quiet, he (Viscount Grey) said that that im- 
pression had been removed by the orders which "we gave to the first 
fleet." On July 29 Lord Grey immediately acquainted the French 
Ambassador with his confidential warning to our Ambassador at 
London, that Germany must be prepared for speedy decisions, that 
is, for her (England's) participation in the war against us. 

Could Lord Grey suppose that such a disclosure would serve peace? 
Must not France thereby have been encouraged to give Russia a 
promise of unconditional war support, which Russia had for days 
urgently demanded? Must not Russia have been strengthened to 
the utmost in her bellicose intention by the certainty of a Franco- 
British alliance? The Russian reply to Lord Grey's morning con- 
versation was in fact not long in coming. On the evening of the 
same day, July 29, M. Sazonoff instructed the Russian Ambassador 
in Paris to express his sincere thanks for the declaration made to him 
by the French Ambassador that Russia could rely fully upon the 
support of her ally, France. 

Russia, therefore, during the night of July 30, was given the fact of 
Austro-Hungarian compliance, due to our influence, which gave an 
open road to the maintenance of peace. She was simultaneously 
faced with the certitude of Anglo-French support, disclosed by Lord 
Grey to M. Paul Cambon, which alone gave her the possibilitj' of war. 

She chose mobilization, and with it war. Who now is to blame for 
this fateful decision? We, who recommended with the greatest em- 
phasis to the Vienna Cabinet utter complaisance and the acceptance 
of the English proposal for mediation, or the British Cabinet, which, 
in a critical hour, held out to France and Russia a prospect of its 
support? Lord Grey did not speak of these decisive things, but, on 
the other hand, he turned the attention of his audience to minor 
things. 

The resort of [to] The Hague Tribunal which the Czar proposed 
Bounds on first sight very important, but it was proposed after the 
Russian troops had already been put in motion against us. His 
own conference proposal (I have repeatedly pointed out this in the 
Reichstag) Lord Grey set aside in favor of our mediation. 

And Belgium! Before a single German soldier had set foot on 
Belgium territory Lord Grey explained to the French Ambassador, 

[7] 



after the latter's report to his Government, that in case the German 
fleet should enter the Channel or pass from the North Sea with the 
intention of attacking the French Coast, or the French fleet, or 
disturb (beunruhigen) the mercantile fleet (I repeat the word "dis- 
turb," gentlemen.) the British fleet would interfere, and give its 
protection in such a manner that from this moment England and 
Germany would be in a state of war. 

Can he who declared that our fleet's putting to sea would be a 
casus belli still seriously maintain that the violation of Belgian neu- 
trality was the sole cause of England's entering the war against her 
will? And finally, with regard to the statement that, in order to keep 
England out of the war, we made a discreditable proposal to the 
British Government to shut its eyes to the violation of Belgian neu- 
trality and allow us a free hand to take the French colonies, I chal- 
lenge Lord Grey to investigate the real facts in his Blue Book and 
in his documents. 

In an earnest endeavor to localize the war, I assured the British 
Ambassador in Berlin on July 29 that, on the condition of England's 
neutrality, we would guarantee the integrity of France. On Aug. i 
Prince Lichnowsky asked Lord Grey whether, in the event of Ger- 
many's undertaking to respect the neutrality of Belgium, England 
would also undertake to observe neutrality. He further held out the 
prospect that, in the event of English neutrality, the integrity not 
only of France, but also of the French colonies might be guaranteed. 
On my instructions he gave an assurance that we were ready to give 
up the idea of an attack against France if England would guarantee 
the neutrality of France. 

At the last moment I promised further that so long as England 
remained neutral our fleet would not attack the French northern 
coast, and on the condition of reciprocity would undertake no hostile 
operations against French merchant ships. Lord Grey's sole reply to 
this was that he must finally decline all promise of neutrality. He 
could only say that England wished to keep her hands untied. If 
England had given this declaration of neutrality she would not have 
been exposed to the contempt of the whole world, but would have 
gained the credit of having prevented the war (das Verdienst den Aus- 
bruch des Krieges zu verhindern). 

I ask here, too, who willed the war? We who were prepared to give 
England every imaginable security for France and Belgium, or Eng- 
land, which declined all our proposals and refused even to indicate 
the way for the preservation of peace between our <wo nations 
(zwischen unsern beiden LSndern) ? 

Lord Grey finally dealt exhaustively with the period after peace and 
with the establishment of an international union to preserve peace. 
On that subject, too, I will say a few words. We never concealed 

[8] 



13 

our doubts whether peace could be lastingly insured by international 
organizations such as arbitration courts. I will not discuss here the 
theoretical part of the problem, but in practice now and in peace we 
shall have to define our attitude toward the question. 

When, after the termination of the war, the world shall fully recog- 
nize its horrible devastation of blood and treasure, then through all 
mankind will go the cry for peaceful agreements and understandings 
which will prevent, so far as is humanly possible, the return of such 
an immense catastrophe. This cry will be so strong and so justified 
that it must lead to a result. Germany will honorably cooperate in 
investigating every attempt to find a practical solution, and collabo- 
rate toward its possible realization, and that all the more if the war, 
as we confidently expect, produces political conditions which will do 
justice to the free development of all nations, small as well as great. 
In that case the principle of right and free development must be made 
to prevail, not only on the Continent, but also at sea. 

Of that Lord Grey, of course, did not speak. The guarantee of 
peace which he has in mind appears to me to possess a peculiar char- 
acter, devised especially for British wishes. During the war the neu- 
trals, according to his desire, will have to remain silent and patiently 
endure every compulsion of British domination on the seas. After 
the war, when England as she thinks, will have beaten us, when she 
will have made a new arrangement of the world, then neutrals are 
to combine as guarantors of the new English arrangement of the 
world. To this arrangement of the world will also belong the fol- 
lowing: 

From a trustworthy source we know that England and France 
already, in 1915, guaranteed to Russia territorial rule over Constan- 
tinople, the Bosporus and the western shore of the Dardanelles, with 
its hinterland, while Asia Minor was to be divided among the Entente 
Powers. The English Government avoided replying to the questions 
which were asked in Parliament on this subject, but certainly these 
plans of the Entente are also of interest for the International Peace 
Union which later is to guarantee them. These are the annexation 
intentions of our enemies, to which also must be added Alsace-Lor- 
raine, while I, in the discussion of our war aims, have never indicated 
the annexation of Belgium as our intention. 

Such a policy of force (Gewaltpolitik) cannot, of course, form the 
basis for an eff'ective international peace union, and it is in the 
strongest contrast to Lord Grey's and Mr. Asquith's ideal state of 
things, where right governs might and all States form a family of 
civilized mankind, and can freely develop themselves, whether big or 
small, under the same conditions and in accordance with their natural 
capabilities. If the Entente wishes seriously to take up this position, 
then it should also act consistently upon it; otherwise the most ex- 

[9] 



14 

alted words about peace, union and harmonious living together in an 
international family are mere words (Schall and Ranch). 

The first condition for the development of international relations 
by means of an arbitration court and the peaceful liquidation of con- 
flicting antagonisms would be that henceforth no aggressive coalitions 
should be formed. Germany is ready at all times to join the union 
of peoples, and even to place herself at the head of such a union, 
which will restrain the disturber of peace. The history of inter- 
national relations before the war lies clearly before the eyes of the 
entire world. 

What brought France to Russia's side? Alsace-Lorraine. Why did 
Russia desire Constantinople? Why did England join them? 

Because Germany, in peaceful work, had become too great for her. 
What did we desire? Lord Grey says that Germany, with her first 
proposal concerning the integrity of France and Belgium, desired to 
purchase England's permission to take what she wanted of the 
French colonies. Even the most hair [hare]-brained German did not 
entertain the idea of attacking France for the purpose of seizing 
her colonies. 

It was not this which was fateful to Europe, but that the English 
Government favored French and Russian predatory aims which 
were unattainable without a European war. As against this aggres- 
sive character of the Entente, the Triple Alliance had always found 
itself in a defensive position. No honorable critic can deny that. 
Not in the shadow of Prussian militarism did the world live before 
the war, but in the shadow of the policy of isolation which was to 
keep Germany down. 

Against this policy, whether it appears diplomatically as encircle- 
ment, military as a war of destruction, economically as a world-boy- 
cott, we from the beginning have been on the def ensiv^e. The German 
people wages this war as a defensive war for the safety of its national 
existence and for its free development. 

We have never pretended anything else; we have never intended 
anything different. How otherwise could this display of gigantic 
forces, this inexhaustible heroism, determined to fight to the last, be 
explained? There is no precedent for it in all human history. At the 
obstinacy of the enemy's will to war, at the calling up of military 
material and auxibary forces from all parts of the world, our resistance 
hardened to still greater determination. However England may still 
supplement her strength — and there is a limit even to England's 
command of strength — it is predestined to fail before our will to live. 
This will is unconquerable, imperturbable. We wait for our enemies 
to recognize this, confident that this recognition must come. 



[lO] 



15 



II 

Text of the Teutonic Notes to the Neutral Powers 
and the Pope 

TO THE NEUTRAL POWERS 

BERLIN, Dec. 12 — Following is the text of the note addressed by 
Germany and her allies to the neutral powers for transmission to the 
Entente Allies: 

"The most terrific war experienced in history has been raging for 
the last two years and a half over a large part of the world — a catas- 
trophe which thousands of years of common civilization was unable 
to prevent and which injures the most precious achievements of 
humanity. 

"Our aims are not to shatter nor annihilate our adversaries. In 
spite of our consciousness of our military and economic strength and 
our readiness to continue the war (which has been forced upon us) 
desire to avoid further bloodshed and make an end to the atrocites 
of war, the four allied powers propose to enter forthwith into peace 
negotiations. 

"The propositions which they bring forward for such negotiations, 
and which have for their object a guarantee of the existence, of the 
honor and liberty of evolution for their nations, are according to their 
firm belief, an appropriate basis for the establishment of a lasting 
peace. 

"The four allied powers have been obliged to take up arms to 
defend justice and the liberty of national evolution. The glorious 
deeds of our armies have in no way altered their purpose. We always 
maintained the firm belief that our own rights and justified claims 
in no way control the rights of these nations. 

"The spiritual and material progress which were the pride of Europe 
at the beginning of the twentieth century are threatened with ruin. 
Germany and her allies, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and Turkey, 
gave proof of their unconquerable strength in this struggle. They 
gained gigantic advantages over adversaries superior in number and 

[II] 



i6 



war material. Our lines stand unshaken against ever-repeated 
attempts made by armies. 

"The last attack in the Balkans has been rapidly and victoriously 
overcome. The most recent events have demonstrated that further 
continuance of the war will not result in breaking the resistance of 
our forces, and the whole situation with regard to our troops justifies 
our expectation of further successes. 

"If, in spite of this offer of peace and reconciliation, the struggle 
should go on, the four allied powers are resolved to continue to a 
victorious end, but they disclaim responsibility for this before human- 
ity and history. The Imperial Government, through the good oflSces 
of your Excellency, asks the Government of [here is inserted the name 
of the neutral power addressed in each instance] to bring this com- 
munication to the knowledge of the Government of [here are inserted 
the names of the belligerents]." 

TO THE VATICAN 

BERLIN, Dec. 12 — The note of the German Government, as presented 
by Dr. von Muhlberg, German Minister to the Vatican, to Cardinal 
Gasparri, Papal Secretary of State, reads as follows: 

"According to instructions received I have the honor to send to 
your Eminence a copy of the declaration of the Imperial Government 
today, which by the good offices of the powers intrusted with the 
protection of German interests in the countries with which the Ger- 
man Empire is in a state of war, transmits to these States, and in 
which the Imperial Government declares itself ready to enter into 
peace negotiations. The Austro-Hungarian, Turkish and Bulgarian 
Governments also have sent similar notes. 

"The reasons which prompted Germany and her allies to take this 
step are manifest. For two years and a half a terrible war has been 
devastating the European Continent. Unlimited treasures of civiliza- 
tion have been destroyed. Extensive areas have been soaked with 
blood. Millions of brave soldiers have fallen in battle and millions 
have returned home as invalids. Grief and sorrow fill almost every 
house. 

"Not only upon the belligerent nations but also upon neutrals the 
destructive consequences of the gigantic struggle weigh heavily. 
Trade and commerce, carefully built up in years of peace, have been 
depressed. The best forces of the nation have been withdrawn from 
the production of useful objects. Europe, which formerly was devoted 
to the propagation of rehgion and civilization, which was trying to 
find solutions for social problems and was the home of science and art 
and all peaceful labor, now resembles an immense war camp, in which 

[12] 



17 

the achievements and works of many decades are doomed to 
annihilation. 

"Germany is carrying on a war of defense against her enemies, 
which aim at her destruction. She fights to assure the integrity of 
her frontiers and the Hberty of the German nation, for the right which 
she claims to develop freely her intellectual and economic energies 
in peaceful competition and on an equal footing with other nations. 
All the efforts of their enemies are unable to shatter the heroic armies 
of the (Teutonic) allien, which protect the frontiers of their countries, 
strengthened by the certainty that the enemy shall never pierce the 
iron wall. 

"Those fighting on the front know that they are supported by the 
whole nation, which is inspired by love for its country, and is ready 
for the greatest sacrifices and determined to defend to the last extrem- 
ity the inherited treasure of intellectual and economic work and the 
social organization and sacred soil of the country. 

"Certain of our own strength, but realizing Europe's sad future if 
the war continues; seized with pity in the face of the unspeakable 
misery of humanity, the German Empire, in accord with her allies, 
solemnly repeats what the Chancellor already has declared, a year 
ago, that Germany is ready to give peace to the world by setting before 
the whole world the question whether or not it is possible to find a 
basis for an understanding. 

"Since the first day of the Pontifical reign his Holiness the Pope has 
unswervingly demonstrated, in the most generous fashion, his solici- 
tude for the innumerable victims of this war. He has alleviated the 
sufferings and ameliorated the fate of thousands of men injured by 
this catastrophe. Inspired by the exalted ideas of his ministry, his 
Holiness has seized every opportunity in the interests of humanity to 
end so sanguinary a war. 

"The Imperial Government is firmly confident that the initiative 
of the four powers will find friendly welcome on the part of his Holi- 
ness, and that the work of peace can count upon the precious support 
of the Holy See." 

AUSTRIA'S SEPARATE STATEMENT 

LONDON, Dec. 12 — An official Austrian statement, referring to the 
peace offer, says: 

"When in the Summer of 1914 the patience of Austria-Hungary 
was exhausted by a series of systematically continued and ever 
increasing provocations and menaces, and the monarchy, after almost 
fifty years of unbroken peace, found itself compelled to draw the 
sword, this weighty decision was animated neither by aggressive 
purposes nor by designs of conquest, but solely by the bitter necessity 

[13] 



i8 



of self-defense, to defend its existence and safeguard itself for the 
future against similar treacherous plots of hostile neighbors. 

"That was the task and aim of the monarchy in the present war. 
In combination with its allies, well trained in loyal comradeship in 
arms, the Austro-Hungarian Army and Fleet, fighting, bleeding, but 
also assailing and conquering, gained such successes that they frus- 
trated the intentions of the enemy. The quadruple alliance not only 
has won an immense series of victories, but also holds in its power 
extensive hostile territories. Unbroken is its strength, as our latest 
treacherous enemy has just experienced. 

"Can our enemies hope to conquer or shatter this alliance of pow- 
ers? They will never succeed in breaking it by blockade and starva- 
tion measures. Their war aims, to the attainment of which they have 
come no nearer in the third year of the war, will in the future be 
proved to have been completely unattainable. Useless and unavail- 
ing, therefore, is the prosecution of the fighting on the part of the 
enemy. 

"The powers of the Quadruple Alliance, on the other hand, have 
effectively pursued their aims, namely, defense against attacks on 
their existence and integrity, which were planned in concert long 
since, and the achievement of real guarantees, and they will never 
allow themselves to be deprived of the basis of their existence, which 
they have secured by advantages won. 

"The continuation of the murderous war, in which the enemy can 
destroy much, but cannot — as the Quadruple Alliance is firmly con- 
fident — alter fate, is ever more seen to be an aimless destruction 
of human lives and property, an act of inhumanity justified by no 
necessity, and a crime against civilization. 

"This conviction, and the hope that similar views may also be 
begun to be entertained in the enemy camp, has caused the idea to 
ripen in the Vienna Cabinet — in full agreement with the Governments 
of the allied [Teutonic] powers — of making a candid and loyal en- 
deavor to come to a discussion with their enemies for the purpose of 
paving a way for peace. 

"The Governments of Austria-Hungary, Germany, Turkey, and 
Bulgaria have addressed today identical notes to the diplomatic 
representatives in the capitals concerned who are intrusted with the 
promotion of enemy nationals, expressing an inclination to enter into 
peace negotiations and requesting them to transmit this overture to 
enemy States. This step was simultaneously brought to the knowl- 
edge of the representatives of the Holy See in a special note, and the 
active interest of the Pope for this offer of peace was solicited. Like- 
wise the accredited representatives of the remaining neutral States in 
the four capitals were acquainted with this proceeding for the purpose 
of informing their Governments." 

[14] 



19 



"Austria and her allies by this step have given new and decisive 
proof of their love of peace. It is now for their enemies to make known 
their views before the world. 

"Whatever the result of its proposal may be, no responsibility can 
fall on the Quadruple Alliance, even before the judgment seat of its 
own peoples, if it is eventually obliged to continue the war." 



I 15] 



20 



Speech of the Imperial German Chancellor Before 
the Reichstag on December 12, 1916 

"The Reichstag had been adjourned for a long period, but fortu- 
nately it was left to the discretion of the President as to the day of 
the next meeting. This discretion was caused by the hope that 
soon happy events in the field would be recorded, a hope fulfilled 
quicker, almost, than expected. I shall be brief, for actions speak 
for themselves." 

The Chancellor said Rumania had entered the war in order to roll 
up the German positions in the east and those of Germany's allies. 
At the same time the grand offensive on the Sorame had as its object 
to pierce the German western front, and the renewed Italian attacks 
were intended to paralyze Austria-Hungary. 

"The situation was serious," said the Chancellor. "But with God's 
help our troops shaped conditions so as to give us security which not 
only is complete but still more so than ever before. The western 
front stands. Not only does it stand, but in spite of the Rumanian 
campaign it is fitted out with larger reserves of men and material 
than it had been formerly. The most effective precautions have 
been taken against all Italian diversions. And while on the Somme 
and on the Carso the drumfire resounded, while the Russians launched 
troops against the eastern frontier of Transylvania, Field Marshal 
von Hindenburg captured the whole of Western Wallachia and the 
hostile capital of Bucharest, leading with unparalleled genius the 
troops that in competition with all the allies made possible what 
hitherto was considered impossible. 

"And Hindenburg does not rest. Military operations progress. 
By strokes of the sword at the same time firm foundations for our 
economic needs have been laid. Great stocks of grain, victuals, oil, 
and other goods fell into our hands in Rumania. Their transport has 
begun. In spite of scarcity, we could have lived on our own supplies, 
but now our safety is beyond question. 

"To these great events on land, heroic deeds of equal importance 
are added by our submarines. The spectre of famine, which our 
enemies intended to appear before us, now pursues them without 
mercy. When, after the termination of the first year of the war, 

[16] 



21 



the Emperor addressed the nation in a public appeal, he said: 'Having 
witnessed such great events, my heart was filled with awe and deter- 
mination'. Neither our Emperor nor our nation ever changed their 
minds in this respect. Neither have they now. The genius and 
heroic acts of our leaders have fashioned these facts as firm as iron. 
If the enemy counted upon the weariness of his enemy, then he was 
deceived. 

"The Reichstag, by means of the national auxiliary war service 
law, helped to build a new offensive and defensive bulwark in the 
midst of the great struggle. Behind our fighting army stands the 
nation at work — the gigantic force of the nation, working for the 
common aim. 

"The empire is not a besieged fortress, as our adversaries imagined, 
but one gigantic and firmly disciplined camp with inexhaustible 
resources. That is the German Empire, which is firmly and faith- 
fully united with its brothers in arms, who have been tested in battle 
under the Austro-Hungarian, Turkish, and Bulgarian flags. 

"Our enemies now ascribed to us a plan to conquer the whole world' 
and then desperate cries of anguish for peace. But not confused by 
these asseverations, we progressed with firm decision, and we thus 
continue our progress, always ready to defend ourselves and fight 
for our nation's existence, for its free future, and always ready for this 
price to stretch out our hand for peace. 

"Our strength has not made our ears deaf to our responsibility 
before God, before our own nation, and before humanity. The 
declarations formerly made by us concerning our readiness for peace 
were evaded by our adversaries. Now we have advanced one step 
further in this direction. On Aug. i, 1914, the Emperor had per- 
sonally to take the gravest decision which ever fell to the lot of a 
German — the order for mobilization — which he was compelled to 
give as the result of the Russian mobilization. During these long and 
earnest years of the war the Emperor has been moved by a single 
thought — how peace could be restored to safeguard Germany after 
the struggle in which she has fought victoriously. 

"Nobody can testify better to this than I who bear the responsi- 
bility for all actions of the Government. In a deep moral and religious 
sense of duty toward his nation and, beyond it, toward humanity, 
the Emperor now considers that the moment has come for official 
action toward peace. His Majesty, therefore, in complete harmony 
and in common with our allies, decided to' propose to the hostile 
powers to enter peace negotiations. This morning I transmitted a 
note to this effect to all the hostile powers through the representatives 
of those powers which are watching over our interests and rights in 
the hostile States. I asked the representatives of Spain, the United 
States, and Switzerland to forward that note. 

[17] 



22 



"The same procedure has been adopted to-day in Vienna, Constan- 
tinople, and Sofia. Other neutral States and his Holiness the Pope 
have been similarly informed." 

The Chancellor then read the note and, continuing, said: 
"Gentlemen, in August, 1914, our enemies challenged the superi- 
ority of power in the world war. To-day we raise the question of 
peace, which is a question of humanity. We await the answer of 
our enemies with that sereneness of mind which is guaranteed to us 
by our exterior and interior strength, and by our clear conscience. If 
our enemies decline to end the war, if they wish to take upon them- 
selves the world's heavy burden of all these terrors which hereafter 
will follow, then even in the least and smallest homes every German 
heart will bum in sacred wrath against our enemies, who are unwilling 
to stop human slaughter in order that their plans of conquest and 
annihilation may continue. 

"In the fateful hour we took a fateful decision. It has been satu- 
rated with the blood of hundreds of thousands of our sons and brothers 
who gave their lives for the safety of their home. Human wits and 
human understanding are unable to reach to the extreme and last 
questions in this struggle of nations, which has unveiled all the terrors 
of earthly life, but also the grandeur of human courage and human 
will in ways never seen before. God will be the judge. We can 
proceed upon our way." 



[is: 



23 



III 

Replies of the Allied Nations to the Notes of the 
Central Powers — Resolution of the Russian 
Duma, Declaring Against Acceptance of Ger- 
man Proposal, December 15, 191 6 

The Duma, having heard the statement by the Minister of Foreign 
Affairs, unanimously favors a categorical refusal by the Allied Gov- 
ernments to enter, under present conditions, into any peace negotia- 
tions whatever. 

It considers that the German proposals are nothing more than 
fresh proof of the weakness of the enemy, and a hypocritical act from 
which the enemy expects no real success, but by which it seeks to 
throw upon others the responsibility for the war and for what hap- 
pened during it, and to exculpate itself before public opinion in 
Germany. 

The Duma considers that a premature peace would not only be a 
brief period of calm, but would also involve the danger of another 
bloody war and a renewal of the deplorable sacrifices by the people. 
It considers that a lasting peace will be possible only after a decisive 
victory over the military power of the enemy, and after definite renun- 
ciation by Germany of the aspirations which render her responsible 
for the world war and for the horrors by which it has been accom- 
panied. 



[19] 



24 



speech of Premier Briand Before the Chamber 
of Deputies on December 13, 191 6 

(Translation from the stenographic record of the Journal Officiel) 

Gentlemen: At the very moment when she is proclaiming 
victory on every front, Germany, feeling in the bottom of her heart 
that she cannot win this war, sends us a message which I feel it is 
impossible to let pass without comment. 

You have read the speech of von Bethmann-HoUweg, Chancellor 
of the German Empire. 

Regarding this address, of which I have not the authentic text, it 
is impossible for me to speak definitely. I cannot give you an officizil 
opinion. No government, moreover, has up to this time been im- 
pressed by these so-called offers, and it is doubtful whether those 
who have been asked to intervene would, at the present time and 
under existing conditions, accept a task which is so delicate and which 
might easily trouble their consciences. 

In the last analysis, as in every instance, I could not bring you any 
official opinion until the subject had been carefully studied, debated, 
and a conclusion reached in full accord and in complete unanimity 
with our allies. 

But I consider it my right and my duty forthwith to do what I can 
to prevent the possibility of poisoning the public opinion of my 
country. 

When I see Germany arming herself to the teeth, mobilizing her 
entire civil population at the risk of ruining her commerce and her 
industry and of disorganizing the homes of which she is so proud; 
when I see her furnaces blazing to produce munitions of war; when 
I see her seizing men everywhere, in violation of the laws of nations, 
and forcing them to work for her — when I see these things, I would 
be very guilty if I did not cry out to my country: "Look out I Take 
carel" 

Gentlemen, note that what comes to us from across the frontier is 
an invitation to negotiate for peace. It is made under conditions with 
which you are familiar: Belgium invaded; Serbia invaded; Rumania 
invaded; ten of our departments invaded. 

This invitation is made in a vague and indefinite manner, expressed 
in solemn words, destined to confuse the minds, to upset the con- 

I20] 



25 

sciences and to trouble the hearts of peoples bearing so grievous a 
burden of bereavement. Gentlemen, I would call your attention to 
the fact that this is a moment full of danger. 

I discern in these declarations the same complaint which has 
always sought to deceive neutral nations and is trying perhaps to 
delude the clear-headed elements among the German people also. 
"This horrible war," they announce, "is not of our unchaining." 

This cry is ever upon the lips of the German people: "We have 
been attacked, we are defending ourselves, we are the victims of 
this war." 

To this cry, first of all, I wish to reply for the hundredth time: "No I 
It is you who are the aggressors. Whatever you may say, the facts 
are there, and they accuse you. The blood is on your heads and not 
on ours." 

Furthermore, considering the conditions under which these propo- 
sitions are made, I am justified in denouncing them as a manoeuvre, 
as a crude trap; when, after reading such words as these: "We wish 
to give to our people all the liberties which they need, to offer them 
every means of subsistence and every opportunity for success which 
they can desire," I find that, in the same document, our enemies 
generously offer to the other nations, as a form of charity, a willing- 
ness to spare them from being crushed, annihilated, I cry out 
"Is it true? Do they dare, after the Marne, after the Yser, after 
Verdun, to make such an offer to France, erect and glorious?" 

One must stop and consider such a document; one must see what 
it means at the time when it is sent out to the different nations of the 
world; one must ascertain its purpose. 

I am expressing my personal feelings to this body; I should not have 
brought forward my impressions if it had not been my duty to put 
my country on her guard against the possibility of demoralization. 

It is not that I doubt its clarity nor its perspicacity. I am very 
sure that it will not be duped. 

But, nevertheless, from this place, before the proposals are pre- 
sented in official form, I feel it is my duty to say that there is in this 
offer a ruse. There is an attempt to weaken our alliance to confuse 
our minds, and to lower the morale of the allied nations. 

In closing — and you will not criticise me, I think, for having dis- 
cussed this question — let me say that the French Republic of today 
will play her part as formerly, under similar circumstances, did the 
Convention. 



[21] 



26 



speech of the Prime Minister of Great Britain 
Before the House of Commons, December 19, 
1916 

I shall have to claim the indulgence of the House in making the 
few observations that I have to make in moving the second reading 
of the Bill. 

I appear before the House of Commons today with the most 
terrible responsibility that can fall upon the shoulders of any living 
man. As the chief Minister of the Crown, and in the midst of the 
most stupendous war in which this country ever has been engaged, 
a war upon which its destinies depend, the responsibilities which 
rest upon the Government have been accentuated by the declaration 
of the German Chancellor, and I propose to deal with that at once. 

The statement made by him in the German Reichstag has been 
followed by a note presented to us by the United States Minister, 
without any note or comment. The answer which is given by the 
Government will be given in full accord with all our various allies. 
Already there has been an interchange of views, not upon the note 
itself, because it has only recently arrived, but upon the spirit which 
impelled the note. The note is only a paraphrase of the speech, 
so that the subject matter of the note itself has been discussed infor- 
mally with the allies, and I am glad to be able to say that we arrived 
sepzirately at identical conclusions. 

I am very glad that the first answer was given to the German 
Chancellor by France and by Russia. They have unquestionably 
the right to give the first answer. The enemy is still on their soil 
and their sacrifices have been greater. The answer they have 
given has already appeared in all the papers, and I stand here today 
on behalf of the Government to give a clear and definite support to 
the statement they have already made. And here let me say that 
any man or set of men who wantonly and without sufficient cause 
prolongs a terrible conflict like this has on his soul a crime that 
oceans could not cleanse; on the other hand, a man or set of men 
who from a sense of war weariness abandoned the struggle without 
achieving the high purpose for which we entered upon it would be 
guilty of the most ghastly poltroonery ever perpetrated by any 
statesman. 

[22] 



27 

I should like to quote the well-known words of Abraham Lincoln 
under similar conditions: 

"We accepted the war for an object, a worthy object. The war will 
end when that object is attained. Under God I hope it will never 
end until that time." 

Are we to achieve that object by accepting the invitations of the 
German Chancellor? That is the only question we have to put to 
ourselves. 

There has been some talk about the proposals of peace. What 
are those proposals? There are none. To enter, on the invitation 
of Germany, proclaiming herself victorious, without any knowledge 
of the proposals she intends to make, into a conference, is putting 
our heads into a noose with the rope end in the hands of the Germans. 

This country is not altogether without experience in these matters. 
It is not the first time we have fought a great military despotism 
which was over-shadowing Europe, and it will not be the first time 
we shall help to overthrow it. We have an uncomfortable historical 
memory of these things. We can recall how one of the greatest of 
these despots, having a purpose to serve in the organization of his 
nefarious scheme, appeared in the garb of the angel of peace. He 
usually appeared under two conditions — ^when he wished for time to 
assimilate conquest and reorganize for fresh advances; or, secondly, 
when his subjects showed symptoms of fatigue and war weariness. 
The appeal was always made in the name of humanity. He demanded 
an end of bloodshed, at which he professed himself to be horrified, 
but for which he himself was mainly responsible. Our Eincestors 
were taken in and bitterly did they and Europe rue it. The time 
was devoted to reorganizing his forces for a deadlier attack than ever 
upon the liberties of Europe. 

Examples of the kind cause us to regard this note with a con- 
siderable measure of reminiscent disquiet. We feel we ought to 
know before we give favorable consideration to such an invitation 
that Germany is prepared to accede to the only terms on which it 
is possible for peace to be obtained and maintained in Europe. 

What are these terms? They have been repeatedly stated by all 
the leading statesmen of the Allies. All I can do is to quote what 
the leader of the House, Mr. Bonar Law, said last week when he made 
practically the same statement of terms as those put forward by 
Mr. Asquith — "restitution, reparation, guarantees against repe- 
tition." 

So that there shall be no mistakes (and it is important that there 
should be no mistake in a matter of the life and death of millions), 
let me say complete restitution, full reparation, and effectual guar- 
antees. 

Did the German Chancellor use a single phrase that would indicate 

[23] 



28 



that he was prepared to accept such terms? Was there a hint of 
restitution? Was there any suggestion of reparation? Was there 
any indication of any security for the future, that this outrage on 
civilization would not again be perpetrated at the first profitable 
opportunity? 

The very substance and style of the speech constituted a denial 
of peace on the only terms on which peace is possible. He is not 
even conscious now that Germany has committed an offense against 
the rights of free nations. Listen to this quotation: "Not for an 
instant had they (the Central Powers) swerved from the conviction 
that a respect for the rights of free nations is in any degree incom- 
patible with their own rights and legitimate interests." When did 
they discover that? Where was the respect for the rights of other 
nations in Belgium? 

That, it is said, was for self-defense. Menaced, I suppose, by the 
overwhelming army of Belgium, the Germans were intimidated into 
invading Belgium, burning Belgian cities and villages, massacring 
thousands of inhabitants, old and young, carrying survivors into 
bondage — yea, carrying them into slavery at the very moment when 
the note was being written about the "unswerving conviction of the 
respect for the rights of other nations." 

What guarantee is there that these terrors will not be repeated 
in the future? That if we enter into a treaty of peace, we shall put 
an end to Prussian militarism? If there is to be no reckoning for 
these atrocities by land and sea, are we to grasp the hand which 
perpetrated them without any reparation being made? 

We have to exact damages. We have begun; already it has cost 
us much. We must exact it now, so as not to leave such a grim 
inheritance for our children. 

Much as we all long for peace, deeply as we are horrified at the 
war, their note and speech give small encouragement to hope for an 
honorable and lasting peace. What hope is given in that speech? 
The whole root and cause of this bitterness — the arrogant spirit of 
the Prussian military caste — ^will.it not be as dominant as ever if 
we patch up a peace now? 

The very speech resounds with the boast of the Prussian military 
triumph; the very appeal for peace was delivered ostentatiously from 
the triumphal chariot of Prussian militarism. 

We must keep a steadfast eye on the purpose for which we entered 
the war. Otherwise the great sacrifices we are making will be all 
in vain. The German note states that for the defense of their exist- 
ence and for the freedom of national development, the Central Powers 
were constradned to take up arms. Such phrases cannot but deceive 
those who listen to them. They are intended to deceive the German 
nation into supporting the designs of the Prussian military caste. 

[24I 



29 

Who ever wished to put an end to their national existence or to 
the freedom of their national development? We welcomed their 
development so long as it was on behalf of peace. The greater their 
development in that direction, the greater would humanity be 
enriched by that development. 

That was not our design and it is not our purpose now. The 
Allies entered into this war to defend Europe against the aggression 
of Prussian military domination, and they must insist that the end 
is a most complete and effective guarantee against the possibility 
of that caste ever again disturbing the peace of Europe. 

Prussia, since she got into the hands of that caste, has been a bad 
neighbor — arrogant, threatening, bullying, shifting boundaries at her 
will, taking one fair field after another from weaker neighbors and 
adding them to her own dominions, ostentatiously piling up weapons 
of offense, ready on a moment's notice to be used. 

She has always been an unpleasant, disturbing neighbor to us. 
She got thoroughly on the nerves of Europe, and there was no peace 
near where she dwelt. 

It is difficult for those who were fortunate enough to live thousands 
of miles away, to understand what it has meant to those who lived 
near. Even here, with the protection of the broad seas between us, 
we know what a disturbing factor the Prussians were with their 
constant naval menace. But even we can hardly realize what it has 
meant to France and Russia. Several times there were threats. 
There were two of them within the lifetime of this generation which 
presented an alternative of war or humiliation. 

There were many of us who had hoped that internal influence in 
Germany would have been strong enough to check and ultimately 
to eliminate this hectoring. All our hopes proved illusory, and now 
that this great war has been forced by the Prussian military leaders 
upon France, Russia, Italy and ourselves, it would be a cruel folly 
not to see to it that this swashbuckling through the streets of Europe 
to the disturbance of all harmless and peaceful citizens shall be dealt 
with now as an offense against the law of nations. 

The mere word that led Belgium to her own destruction will not 
satisfy Europe any more. We all believed it; we all trusted in it. 
It gave way at the first pressure of temptation, and Europe has been 
plunged into this vortex of blood. We will therefore wait until we 
hear what terms and guarantees the German Government offers 
other than those, better than those, surer than those, which she so 
lightly broke. Meanwhile we ought to put our trust in an unbroken 
army rather than in a broken faith. 

For the moment, I do not think that it would be advisable for me to 
add anything upon this particular invitation. A formal reply will be 
delivered by the Allies in the course of the next few days. 

[25] 



30 



* * * 

There is a time in every prolonged war, in the passionate rage of 
the conflict, when men forget the high purpose with which they 
entered into it. 

This is a struggle for international right, international honor, 
international good faith — the channel along which peace on earth 
and good will among men must follow. The embattlements, labor- 
iously built up by generations of men against barbarism, were broken, 
and had not the might of Britain passed into the breach, Europe 
would have been inundated with a flood of savagery and unbridled 
lust of power. 

The trained sense of fair play among the nations, the growth of 
an international consciousness for the protection of the weak against 
the strong, of a stronger consciousness that justice has a more power- 
ful backing in the world than greed, the knowledge that any outrage 
upon fair dealing between nations, great or small, will meet with 
prompt and inevitable chastisement — these constitute the causeway 
along which humanity was progressing slowly to higher fields. 

The triumph of Prussia would sweep it all away and leave mankind 
to struggle, helpless, in the morass of horror. That is why since this 
war began I have known but one political aim. For that I have fought 
with a single aim. That was to rescue mankind from the most 
overwhelming catastrophe that has ever yet menaced its well-being. 



[26] 



31 



Reply of the Entente Allies to the Central Powers 

Paris, December 30 

The allied Governments of Belgium, France, Great Britain, Italy, 
Japan, Montenegro, Portugal, Rumania, Russia, and Serbia, united 
for the defense of the liberty of their peoples and faithful to engage- 
ments taken not to lay down their arms separately, have resolved to 
reply collectively to the pretended propositions of peace which were 
addressed to them on behalf of the enemy Governments through the 
intermediary of the United States, Spain, Switzerland, and Holland. 

Before making any reply, the allied powers desire particularly to 
protest against the two essential assertations of the notes of the enemy 
powers that pretend to throw upon the Allies responsibility for the 
war and proclaim the victory of the Central Powers. The allied 
Governments cannot admit an affirmation doubly inexact and which 
suffices to render sterile all tentative negotiations. The allied nations 
have sustained for thirty months a war they did everything to avoid. 
They have shown by their acts their attachment to peace. That 
attachment is as strong today as it was in 1914. But it is not upon 
the word of Germany, after the violation of its engagements, that the 
peace broken by her may be based. 

A mere suggestion without a statement of terms, that negotiations 
should be opened, is not an offer of peace. The putting forward by 
the Imperial Government of a sham proposal lacking all substance 
and decision would appear to be less an offer of peace than a war 
manoeuvre. It is founded on calculated misinterpretation of the 
character of the struggle in the past, the present, and the future. 

As for the past, the German note takes no account of the facts, 
dates, and figures, which establish that the war was desired, provoked, 
and declared by Germany and Austria-Hungary. 

At The Hague Conference it was a German delegate who refused 
all proposals for disarmament. In July, 1914, it was Austria-Hungary, 
who, after having addressed to Serbia an unprecedented ultimatum, 
declared war upon her in spite of the satisfaction which had at once 
been accorded. 

The Central Empires then rejected all attempts made by the 
Entente to bring about a pacific solution of a purely local conflict. 
Great Britain suggested a conference; France proposed an interna- 
tional commission; the Emperor to go to arbitration, and Russia and 

[27] 



32 

Austria-Hungary came to an understanding on the eve of the conflict. 
But to all these efforts Germany gave neither answer nor effect. 

Belgium was invaded by an empire which had guaranteed her 
neutrality and which had the assurance to proclaim that treaties were 
'scraps of paper', and that 'necessity knows no law'. 

At the present moment these sham offers on the part of Germany 
rest on the war map of Europe alone, which represents nothing more 
than a superficial and passing phase of the situation and not the real 
strength of the belligerents. A peace concluded upon these terms 
would be only to the advantage of the aggressors who, after imagining 
that they would reach their goal in two months, discovered after two 
years that they could never attain it. 

As for the future, the disasters caused by the German declaration 
of war, and the innumerable outrages committed by Germany and 
her alUes against both belligerents and neutrals demand penalties, 
reparation, and guarantees. Germany avoids mention of any of these. 

In reaUty these overtures made by the Central Powers are nothing 
more than a calculated attempt to influence the future course of war 
and to end it by imposing a German peace. The object of these over- 
tures is to create dissension in public opinion in the allied countries. 
But that public opinion has, in spite of all the sacrifices endured by 
the Allies, already given its answer with admirable firmness, and has 
denounced the empty pretense of the declaration of the enemy powers. 

They [the peace overtures] have the further object of stiffening 
public opinion in Germany and in the countries allied to her — one 
and all severely tried by their losses, worn out by economic pressure, 
and crushed by the supreme effort which has been imposed upon their 
inhabitants. 

They endeavor to deceive and intimidate public opinion in neutral 
countries, whose inhabitants have long since made up their minds 
where the initial responsibilities he and are far too enlightened to 
favor the designs of Germany by abandoning the defense of human 
freedom. 

Finally, these overtures attempt to justify in advance in the eyes 
of the world new series of crimes — submcirine warfare, deportations, 
forced labor and forced enlistment of the inhabitants against their 
own countries, and violations of neutrality. 

Fully conscious of the gravity of this moment, but equally conscious 
of its requirements, the allied Governments, closely united to one 
another and in perfect sympathy with their peoples, refuse to consider 
a proposal which is empty and insincere. 

Once again the Allies declare that no peace is possible so long as 
they have not secured reparation for violated rights and liberties, the 
recognition of the principle of nationality, and of the free existence of 
small States, so long as they have not brought about a settlement 

[28] 



33 

calculated to end once and for all forces which have constituted a 
perpetual menace to the nations, and to afford the only effective 
guarantee for the future security of the world. 

In conclusion, the Allied Powers think it necessary to put forward 
the following considerations, which show the special situation of 
Belgium after two and a half years of war. In virtue of the interna- 
tional treaties signed by five great European powers, of which Ger- 
many was one, Belgium enjoyed before the war a special status, ren- 
dering her territory inviolable and placing her, under the guarantee of 
the powers, outside all European conflicts. She was, however, in spite 
of these treaties, the first to suffer the aggression of Germany. For 
this reason the Belgian Government think it necessary to define the 
aims which Belgium has never ceased to pursue while fighting side 
by side with the Entente Powers for right and justice. 

Belgium has always scrupulously fulfilled the duties which her neu- 
trality imposed upon her. She has taken up arms to defend her 
independence and her neutrality violated by Germany and to show 
that she remains faithful to her international obligations. 

On the 4th of August, 1914, in the Reichstag the German Chancellor 
admitted that this aggression constituted an injustice, contrary to 
the laws of nations, and pledged himself in the name of Germany to 
repair it. During two and a half years this injustice has been cruelly 
aggravated by the proceedings of the occupying forces, which have 
exhausted the resources of the country, ruined its industries, devas- 
tated its towns and villages, and have been responsible for innumer- 
able massacres, executions and imprisonments. 

At this very moment, while Germany is proclaiming peace and 
humanity to the world, she is deporting Belgian citizens by thousands 
and reducing them to slavery. 

Belgium before the war asked for nothing but to live in harmony 
with her neighbors. Her King and her Government have but one aim 
— the re-establishment of peace and justice. But they only desire 
peace which would assure to their country legitimate reparation, 
guarantees and safeguards for the future. 



[29] 



34 



IV 

German Note Concerning the Reply of the 
Entente to the German Peace Proposals 

BERLIN, Jan. ii (by wireless to Sayville.) — Germany today 
handed to the neutral Governments a note concerning the reply of 
the Entente to the German peace proposals, the Overseas News 
Agency announces. 

It is first stated, says the news agency announcement, that the 
German Government has received the reply of the Entente to the 
note of December 12, containing a proposition to enter at once into 
peace negotiations. The note then continues: 

"Our adversaries declined this proposition, giving as the reason 
that it is a proposition without sincerity and without importance. 
The form in which they clothe their communication excludes an 
answer to them, but the Imperial Government considers it important 
to point out to the Governments of neutral powers its opinion regard- 
ing the situation. 

"The Central Powers have no reason to enter into any discussion 
regarding the origin of the world war. History will judge upon whom 
the immense guilt of the war shall fall. History's verdict will as 
little pass over the encircling policy of England, the revengeful policy 
of France, and the endeavor of Russia to gain Constantinople as 
over the instigation of the Serbian assassination in Sarayevo and the 
complete mobilization of Russia, which meant war against Germany. 

"Germany and her allies, who had to take up arms for defense of 
their liberty and their existence, consider this, their aim of war, as 
obtained. 

"On the other hand, the hostile powers always went further away 
from the realization of their plans, which, according to the declara- 
tions of their responsible statesmen, were, among others, directed 
toward the conquest of Alsace-Lorraine and several Prussian prov- 
inces, the humiliation and diminution of the Austro-Hungarian 
monarchy, the partition of Turkey, and the mutilation of Bulgaria. 
In the face of such War aims, the demand for restitution, reparation 
and guarantee in the mouth of our adversaries produces a surprising 
effect. 

[30] 



35 

"Our adversaries call the proposal of the four allied (Teutonic) 
powers a war manoeuvre. Germany and her allies must protest in 
the most energetic fashion against such a characterization of their 
motives, which were frankly explained. They were persuaded that 
a peace which was just and acceptable to all the belligerents was 
possible; that it could be brought about by an immediate spoken 
exchange of views, and that, therefore, the responsibility for further 
bloodshed could not be taken. Their readiness was affirmed without 
reservatioq to make known their peace conditions when nego- 
tiations were entered into, which refutes every doubt as to their 
sincerity. 

"Our adversaries, who had it in their hands to examine the prop- 
osition as to its contents, neither attempted an examination nor 
made counter-proposals. Instead, they declared that peace was im- 
possible so long as the re-establishment of violated rights and lib- 
erties, the recognition of the principle of nationalities, and the free 
existence of small States were not guaranteed. 

"The sincerity which our adversary denies to the proposals of the 
four allied powers will not be conceded by the world to these demands, 
if the world holds before its eyes the fate of the Irish people, the de- 
struction of the liberty and independence of the Boer Republic, the 
subjugation of Northern Africa by England, France and Italy, the 
suppression of Russian alien nations, and also the violation of Greece, 
which is without precedent in history. 

"Against the pretended violations of the laws of nations by the 
four allies (Teutonic) those powers are not entitled to complain, 
which from the beginning of the war trampled on justice and tore to 
pieces the treaties upon which it is built. England already during 
the first weeks of the war had repudiated the London Declaration, 
the content of which had been recognized by its own delegates as a 
valid law of nations, and in the further course of the war violated 
in the most severe fashion also the Paris Declaration, so that by her 
arbitrary measures for warfare a condition of lawlessness has been 
created. 

"The war of starvation against Germany and the pressure exer- 
cised in England's interest against neutrals are not less scandalously 
conflicting with the rules of the laws of nations than with the com- 
mands of humanity. 

"Likewise, contrary to the laws of nations and incompatible 
with the usages of civilization, are the use of colored troops in Europe 
and the extension of the war into Africa which was done by a breach 
of existing treaties and which undermines the prestige of the white 
race on that continent. The barbarous treatment of prisoners, es- 
pecially in Africa and Russia, and the deportation of the civilian 
population from Eastern Prussia, Alsace-Lorraine, Galicia, and Buko- 

[31] 



36 



wina are further proof of how our adversaries respect justice and 
civilization. 

"At the end of their note of December 30, our adversaries point 
out the special situation of Belgium. The Imperial Government is 
unable to acknowledge that the Belgian Government has always 
observed the duties which were enjoined upon her by her neutrality. 
Already before the war Belgium, under England's influence, sought 
support in military fashion from England, and France, and thus 
herself violated the spirit [of the treaty] which she had to guarantee 
her independence and neutrality. * 

"Twice the Imperial Government declared to the Belgian Govern- 
ment that it did not come as an enemy to Belgium, and asked it to 
spare the country the terrors of war. Germany offered to guarantee 
the integrity and independence of the kingdom to the full extent 
and compensate for all damages which might be caused by the pass- 
age of the German troops. It is known that the Royal British Gov- 
ernment in 1887 was resolved not to oppose the use of the right of 
way through Belgium under those conditions. The Belgian Govern- 
ment declined the repeated offer of the Imperial Government. Upon 
her and those powers which instigated her to this attitude falls the 
responsibility for the fate which befell Belgium. 

"The accusations about the Germans' warfare in Belgium and the 
measures taken there in the interest of military safety have been 
repeatedly refuted by the Imperial Government as untrue. Germany 
again offers energetic protest against these calumnies. 

"Germany and her allies have made an honest attempt to termi- 
nate the war and open the road for an understanding among the bel- 
ligerents. The Imperial Government asserts the fact that it merely 
depended upon the decision of our adversaries whether the road 
toward peace should be entered upon or not. The hostile Govern- 
ments declined to accept this road. Upon them falls the full respon- 
sibility for the continuation of the bloodshed. 

"Our allied powers, however, shall continue the struggle in quiet 
confidence and with firm trust in their right, until peace is gained 
which guarantees to their nations honor, existence and liberty of 
development, and which to all the nations of the European Conti- 
nent gives the blessing to cooperate in mutual respect and under 
equal rights together for the solution of the great problems of civil- 
ization." 



C32I 



37 



Appendix 

Speech of Viscount Grey Before the Foreign 
Press Association on October 24, 191 6 

Let me say to you all that, in a time of war such as this, we all 
value the presence amongst us of a body of men belonging to other 
countries, both Allied and neutral, who will faithfully represent what 
they find to be our feeling; who will send out to the world a faithful 
picture of this country in the great struggle through which it is pass- 
ing, who will speak the truth and who, if they can succeed not only 
in speaking the truth, which is comparatively easy, but in getting 
the truth believed through the world at large, will have rendered the 
greatest possible service we can ask of them. 

The President said I was going to make an historic speech. I 
doubt whether any historic speech can be made while the war is still 
in progress. After the war, very likely, but while the war is in progress 
the real historic work is being done in the offices of the General Staffs 
of the Allied countries and on the battlefield, where our soldiers 
are fighting. Words can do but little. The work done by the 
General Staffs at headquarters, or by the armies in the field and the 
navies on the sea — that is the real work which is making history. 
We have had, since the autumn began, two or three notable speeches 
— first of all, a great speech by M. Briand in the French Chamber; 
then, next in time, an interview given by Mr. Lloyd George to a Press 
correspondent in this country; then a speech by Mr. Asquith in the 
House of Commons; and lately we have had a note struck just as 
firmly in Petrograd by an official communique, I think, under the 
auspices of the Minister of the Interior. Those speeches have given 
to the world the note and the tone and the feeling of the Allies at 
this moment. I endorse all that they have said, but this afternoon 
for a few moments I would like to talk, not about the conditions of 
peace, which can only be stated and formulated by the Allies, all 
together and not by any one of them separately, but about the 
general object .which the Allies must secure in this war. 

To do that I would ask you to recall that we must never forget how 
the war came about. If we are to approach the subject in a proper 
spirit it can only be by recalling, and never for one moment forgetting, 
what was the real cause of the war. Some people say you need not 

[33] 



38 



go back on the old ground now; everybody knows it! You cannot 
go back on it too often. It affects the conditions of peace. Germany 
talks of peace. Her statesmen talk of peace today, but what sort of 
peace do they talk of? Oh, they say, Germany must have guarantees 
against being attacked again. If this war had been forced upon Ger- 
many that would be a logical statement. It is precisely because it 
was not forced upon Germany, but forced by Germany upon Europe, 
that it is the Allies who must have guarantees for future peace. In 
July, 1914, no one thought of attacking Germany. It is said that 
Russia was the first to mobilize. That, I understand, is what is rep- 
resented in Germany as a justification for the statement that the war 
was not an aggressive war on Germany's part, but was forced upon 
her. Russia never made the mobilization of which Germany com- 
plained until after Germany had refused the conference, and she 
never made it until after a report had appeared in Germany that 
Germany had ordered mobilization and that report had been tele- 
graphed to Petrograd. As a matter of fact, it was the story of 1870 
over again — preparation for war, not only the preparation of material, 
but the preparatory stages all advanced in Berlin to a point beyond 
that of any other country, and then when the chosen moment came 
a manoeuvre was made to provoke some other country to take a 
defensive step, and when the defensive step was taken, then to 
receive it with an ultimatum which made war inevitable. 

The same thing with the invasion of Belgium. Strategic railways 
had been made in Germany, and the whole plan of campaign of the 
German staff was to attack through Belgium, and now it is represented 
that they had to attack through Belgium because other people had 
planned to attack through Belgium. I would like nothing better 
than to see those statements — that the Russian mobilization was an 
aggressive and not defensive measure, and that any other Power 
than Germany had trafficked in the neutrality of Belgium or planned 
to attack through Belgium — I would like to see those statements 
investigated before any independent and impartial tribunal. 

German organization is very successful in some things, but in 
nothing more successful than in preventing the truth from reaching 
their own people, and succeeding in presenting to them a point of 
view which is not that of the truth — the statement that the war was 
forced upon Germany. When England proposed the conference 
Russia, France and Italy accepted the conference; when four Powers 
offer a conference and one Power refuses it, is it the Powers who are 
offering the conference which are forcing war, or the Power which 
refuses it? The Emperor of Russia offered The Hague Tribunal. 
One Sovereign offers The Hague Tribunal and another ignores it. 
Is it the Sovereign who offers reference to The Hague who is forcing 
war? On the very eve of war France gave her pledge to respect the 

l34l 



39 

neutrality of Belgium if Germany would not violate it. We asked 
for such a pledge. Was it the Power which asked for the pledge and 
the Power which gave the pledge which were responsible for the viola- 
tion of the neutrality of Belgium or the Power which refused to 
give the pledge? Belgium knows, as well as every Frenchman and 
Englishman, that never at any time was there suggestion that 
French or English soldiers should enter Belgium unless it were to 
defend Belgium from the violation of her neutrality, which had 
first been undertaken by Germany. 

Why was it that all the efforts to avoid the war in July, 1914. 
failed? Well, because you cannot have peace without good will, and 
because in Berlin there was the will to war and not the will to peace. 
Now just lately, I think to an American, the Crown Prince has de- 
plored the loss of life caused by this war. Yet it was because we 
knew what the suffering of war must be, because we knew how terrible 
a thing war, let loose in Europe, would be, that we tried to avoid it 
in 1914. Then was the time to have been penetrated with a sense 
of all that war would mean. After we have had this terrible experi- 
ence, our Allies and ourselves are determined that the war shall not 
end till we can be sure, at any rate, that the generations which come 
after us and our nations in future are not to be subjected to such a 
terrible trial again. 

What was the German plan? I saw some statement in the Press 
the other day that a German officer had recognized that Germany 
had failed this time, but that in ten years she was going to succeed. 
What was the plan; what was the failure? It was to be a short 
successful war. There was a time-table — so long to get to Paris; so 
long to defeat France; so long afterwards to defeat Russia — and as 
to England, the plan was that England should be kept out of the war, 
but if England did enter the war it was not thought that the Expedi- 
tionary Force we had available would be enough to upset the enemy's 
plans. People who are militarists, whose ideas and thoughts run 
solely on military considerations, wholly material, forget to estimate 
and cannot estimate the spirit and the soul which exists in nations 
when they are attacked and are fighting for their lives. The plan 
was that France and Russia were to be defeated, England was to be 
isolated — and disgraced. 

We must never forget, as we go through this war, that an offer 
was made to us to keep out of the war. We were asked by the 
German Government to engage to remain neutral on certain condi- 
tions. We were asked to condone the violation of the neutrality of 
Belgium — because that was what the offer came to — though they 
were pledged by treaty to uphold it. And we were asked to give 
Germany a free hand to take whatever she liked of the French 
Colonies. That is why I say the plan was not only to isolate us. but 

[35] 



40 

to discredit us. I would ask any neutral to put it to himself, what 
would be the future of this country if the British Government had 
for a moment accepted such an offer? We might have had an Army 
and a Navy, but there would have been no morale, no spirit in the 
nation. We should have had the contempt of the whole world. 
Tactics so gross as that did not succeed, and I need not recall what 
the reply of the British Government was, nor what the spirit of the 
nation was at the opening of the war. 

We should not think merely of what Germany says today; it is 
worth looking back to the expectations of her Government and 
people when the war started. Then we saw something of their real 
mind; there was a certain Professor Ostwald in Germany who un- 
burdened himself, I think to an American, in August, 191 4. He called 
himself a pacifist and this is what he described as their aims: Ger- 
many was to dictate peace to the rest of Europe, and the principle 
of the absolute sovereignty of individual nations must be given up. 

Don't let us forget that that was the spirit in which this war was 
begun. What is the spirit in which the war is being carried on by 
the Allies and ourselves today? I take it from the words of the 
Prime Minister the other day: "We shall fight until we have estab- 
lished supremacy of right over force, free development under equal 
conditions, and each in accordance with its own genius, of all States, 
great and small, which build up the family of civilized mankind." 

Into this struggle we have put, rightly and necessarily, all our 
resources; all our wealth; all our material ; and all our labour. Now, 
when we have had time to equip and train a large Army, we are 
putting into it all the best life's blood of the nation to shed it on the 
Continent, side by side with our Allies, in emulation of them, stim- 
ulated by the courage and self-sacrifice which they themselves are 
showing in defense of their own country. We are doing it because 
we know that their cause and ours is one; that to the end and for 
the future we fall or stand together; that the separation of one from 
the other is the destruction of the one separated, and not its safety, 
and that for all of us unity is essential, not merely to victory, but to 
our future life and success. Germany has been trying throughout 
the war to separate one from the other — now one, now another. Not 
a week passes that does not confirm our resolve to go through with 
our Allies to the end, and theirs to go through with each other. I 
trust that the memory of the suffering we have undergone together, 
the memory of the joint courage which is carrying us through all 
that we have been through side by side, will be a perpetual bond of 
alliance and sympathy between our Government and peoples. 

Looking to the future after the war, what is it that neutrals can do? 
The other day a correspondent sounded me upon the subject of what 
neutrals can do. I wrote in reply: "I believe the best work that 

[36] 



41 

neutrals can do for the moment is to work up an opinion for such an 
agreement between nations as will prevent a war like this from hap- 
pening again. If nations had been united in such an agreement, and 
prompt and resolute to insist in July, 1914, that the dispute must 
be referred to a conference or to The Hague, and that the Belgian 
Treaty must be observed, there would have been no war." I would 
ask neutrals to observe this — that belligerent countries engaged in 
war, fighting as we are today in a struggle for life and death, fighting, 
it is true, for victory, with increasing prospects of seeing that victory 
approaching nearer, but still knowing that if we stop short of victory 
we stop short of everything — nations engaged in such a struggle 
cannot be expected to have much time to spend upon developing 
ideas of what can be done after victory is secured. But neutrals 
can do it, and it is interesting to observe the attitude, not only of 
President Wilson, but Mr. Hughes. 

In the United States a league has already sprung up, supported by 
various distinguished people, with the object, not of interfering with 
belligerents in this war, but of getting ready for some international 
association, after this war is over, which shall do its part in making 
peace secure in future. I would like to say that if we seem to have 
little time to give to such ideas ourselves while we are engaged in this 
struggle, that is a work in neutral countries to which we should 
all look with favor and with hope. Only bear this in mind, if the 
nations in the world after the war are to do something more effective 
than they have been able to do before, to bind themselves together 
for the common object of peace, they must be prepared not to under- 
take more than they are prepared to uphold by force, and to see 
when the time of crisis comes that it is upheld by force. In other 
words, we say to neutrals who are occupying themselves with this 
question that we are in favor of it. But we shall have to ask when 
the time comes for them to make any demand on us for such a thing, 
"Will you play up when the time comes?" It is not merely a sign 
manual of Sovereigns or Presidents that is required to make a thing 
like that worth while; it must also have behind it Parliaments and 
national sentiment. 

The object of this league is to insist upon treaties being kept and 
some other settlement being tried before resort to war. In July, 
1914, there was no such league in existence. Supposing a generation 
hence such a condition of things as in July, 1914, recurs and there is 
such a league in existence, it may, and it ought to, keep the peace. 
Everything will depend upon whether the national sentiment behind 
it is so penetrated by the lessons of this war as to feel that in the 
future each nation, although not immediately concerned in this 
dispute, is yet interested, and vitally interested, in doing something, 
even if it be by force, to keep the peace. 

l37l 



42 



But there must be more than that. You must have some agree- 
ment after this war is over as to the methods under which the war 
is to be conducted. Germany complains of our methods in this war. 
She complains of our blockade. From the very beginning Germany 
did her utmost to prevent food reaching this country. In the early 
stages of the war she sank two neutral ships with food for this coun- 
try. It does not lie with her to complain of our blockade. But what 
about other methods which had been introduced — the sowing of 
mines indiscriminately upon the high seas, a danger equally to 
neutrals and to belligerents; the pouring of shells into defenseless 
coast towns? — because you must remember that what is required 
according to the German official communiquis, to convert an Allied 
town on the coast into a fortress is not the position of guns in it or 
the presence of troops, but merely the fact that she was fired upon 
by a German cruiser. Then there is the use of poisonous gas in war, 
which nobody would have believed possible if the Germans had 
not begun it, which nobody thought of using till the Germans began 
it. In the Gallipoli Peninsula neither we nor the French used the 
gas, because we would not be the first to introduce it anywhere. 
That has been brought into the war. Then there is the sinking of 
merchant vessels, with the destruction of the passengers and crews; 
the acts committed in Belgium and other Allied territory in the occu- 
pation of Germany, some of which have been the subject of investi- 
gation and report, in breach of all the laws and conventions of war 
and all the most elementary dictates of humanity. 

And one thing more, of which we hear little, very little, and do not 
know the full story. Since the outbreak of war, since Turkey entered 
the war, she has been the vassal of Germany. Enough has leaked 
through to make it clear that there has gone on and is going on. in 
Turkey on a scale unprecedented, and with horrors unequalled before, 
an attempt to exterminate the Christian population; horrors which 
Germany could have prevented and which could only have gone on 
with her toleration. Perhaps some day some neutral nation who 
knows the full story will make it known to the world. All these 
things have been happening during this war, and what a prospect it 
opens for the future! Are all the resources of science to continue to 
be devoted after this war to invent means of destroying the human 
race, with no restrictions upon their use? It is a prospect which 
threatens civilization and existence of the race itself. 

Germany, in letting loose these things, has been the great anar- 
chist who has let loose on the world a greater and more terrible 
anarchy than any individual anarchist ever dreamed of. In future 
war, unless there is some means of restraining it, will by the devel- 
opment of science be made even more terrible and horrible than this 
war has been, because Germany has thrown down all the barriers 

[38] 



\ 



43 

which civilization previously built up so as to keep the horrors of 
war within bounds. Neutral nations have an interest in seeing that 
something is done to ensure that there shall be rules which shall be 
kept in future wars — rules which shall be so laid down and sup- 
ported that it will be clear that any nation which departs from 
them will be regarded by the whole world as the enemy of the human 
race, and have the whole world against them. 

The indiscriminate use of high explosives to destroy great cities, 
to destroy combatants and non-combatants alike, all those things 
which have been done in this war, the introduction of poisonous gas, 
the introduction, perhaps, of disease — it will need all the efforts not 
only of belligerents but of neutrals, after this war is over, to see that 
the barriers necessary to secure that the inventions of science are 
used in the future, in the air, on the land, in the water, and under 
the water, not for the destruction of mankind, but for its welfare, to 
see that all nations shall recognize some responsibility to prevent 
outbreaks of war, and that if there be war, it shall be conducted by 
rules at least as humane as those which our ancestors observed, and 
which Germany today has disregarded and thrown to the winds. 
This is a matter in which the whole human race is interested. 

Day by day it is brought home to us that here and in the countries 
of the Allies there are hundreds of thousands of homes to which, in- 
deed, victory may bring a sense of pride and satisfaction, but to 
which it can never bring just the same gladness and joy in life that 
was in these homes before the war. One young life after another 
goes to the front, mounts in spirit the heights of nobleness and 
courage, to which in ordinary times even a long life gives no oppor- 
tunity of attaining. And on those heights many of them pass away, 
leaving often some record of the spirit with which they have met 
their death, which makes us doubly proud of them, although it adds 
to the poignancy of grief and sense of sorrow and loss. They are suc- 
ceeded by others, and yet by others, and will be as long as the effort 
is required — a long procession from all our countries of men who die 
but do not fail, because their life and the manner of their death is a 
glorious success. 

This generation in its prime is giving its life, but it is giving it that 
the older generation now among us may live out its years after this war 
in peace, freedom and honour, and that the generation which is now 
children, and the generations who are yet to come, may enjoy life 
and develop the national life, free from the stifling oppression of the 
domination of Prussian militarism. For years before this war we 
were living under the deepening shadows of Prussian militarism ex- 
tending itself over the whole of Germany, and then extending itself 
over the whole Continent. There must be no end to this war, no 
peace except a peace which is going to ensure that the nations of 

[39l 



44 

Europe live in the future free from that shadow in the open air and 
in the light of freedom. For that we are contending. We know 
that if mankind has any birthright, as we believe it has a birthright 
to peace and to liberty, then our cause is just and right, because it is 
for that we are fighting. 

When they ask us, "How long is the struggle to be continued?" 
we can but reply that it must be continued till these things are 
secured, and if it be hard that the present generation in its prime 
should be called on to sacrifice all, it is for the sake of the future of 
the nation and the generations that come after. It is our determi- 
nation, which the progress of thewar but deepens, in common with our 
Allies, to continue the war until we have made it certain that the 
Allies in common shall have achieved the success which must and 
ought to be theirs, until they have secured the future peace of the 
whole Continent of Europe, until they have made it clear that all 
the sacrifices we have made shall not have been in vain. 



40 



International Conciliation 

Published monthly by the 
American Association for International Conciliation. 
Entered as second class matter at New York, N. Y., 
Postoffice, February 23, 1909, under act of July 16, 1894 



OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS 
LOOKING TOWARD PEACE 

Series No. II 




FEBRUARY, 1917 

No. Ill 



AMERICAN ASSCKIATION FOR INTERNATIONAL CONCILIATION 

SUB-STATION 84 (407 WEST II7TH STREET) 

NEW YORK CITY 



SOURCES 

I. President Wilson's Note to the Belligerent Nations, December i8, 1916 — 
New York Times, December 19, 19 16 

II. German Note of December 26, 1916, Replying to President Wilson's 
Note of December 18, 1916 — New York Times, December 27, 1916 

III. Reply of the Entente Allies to President Wilson's Note, January 10, 1917 
— Official Copy 

Reponse des gouvernements allies S la note am^ricaine du 19 decembre 
19 1 6 — Official Copy 

IV. Note from Great Britain concerning Peace Sent in Amplification of Allied 
Reply to President Wilson, January ,13, 1917 — New York Times, January 
18, 1917 

V. President Wilson's Address to the Senate, January 22, 1917 — New York 
Times, January 23, 1917 



47 



President Wilson's Note to the Belligerent 
Nations 

the secretary of state to the american ambassadors at the 
capitals of the belligerent powers: 

Department of State, 
Washington, D. C, December i8, 1916. 

The President directs me to send you the following communication 
to be presented immediately to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of 
the Government to which you are accredited : 

The President of the United States has instructed me to suggest to 
the [here is inserted a designation of the Government addressed] a 
course of action with regard to the present war, which he hopes that 
the Government will take under consideration as suggested in the 
most friendly spirit, and as coming not only from a friend but also 
as coming from the representative of a neutral nation whose interests 
have been most seriously affected by the war and whose concern for 
its early conclusion arises out of a manifest necessity to determine 
how best to safeguard those interests if the war is to continue. 

[The third paragraph of the note as sent to the four Central Powers — 
Germany, Austria-Hungary, Turkey, and Bulgaria — is as follows:] 

The suggestion which I am instructed to make, the President has 
long had it in mind to offer. He is somewhat embarrassed to offer it 
at this particular time, because it may now seem to have been 
prompted by a desire to play a part in connection with the recent 
overtures of the Central Powers. It has, in fact, been in no way 
suggested by them in its origin, and the President would have delayed 
offering it until those overtures had been independently answered 
but for the fact that it also concerns the question of peace and may 
best be considered in connection with other proposals which have the 
same end in view. The President can only beg that his suggestion be 
considered entirely on its own merits and as if it liad been made in 
other circumstances. 

[3] 



48 

[The third paragraph of the note as sent to the ten Entente Allies — 
Great Britain, France, Italy, Japan, Russia, Belgium, Montenegro, 
Portugal, Rumania, and Serbia — is as follows:] 

The suggestion which I am instructed to make the President has 
long had it in mind to offer. He is somewhat embarrassed to offer 
it at this particular time, because it may now seem to have been 
prompted by the recent overtures of the Central Powers. It is, in 
fact, in no way associated with them in its origin, and the President 
would have delayed offering it until those overtures had been answered 
but for the fact that it also concerns the question of peace and may 
best be considered in connection with other proposals which have the 
same end in view. The President can only beg that his suggestion be 
considered entirely on its own merits and as if it had been made in 
other circumstances. 

[Thenceforward the note proceeds identically to all the powers, as 
follows:] 

The President suggests that an early occasion be sought to call 
out from all the nations now at war such an avowal of their respective 
views as to the terms upon which the war might be concluded, and the 
arrangements which would be deemed satisfactory as a guaranty 
against its renewal or the kindling of any similar conflict in the future 
as would make it possible frankly to compare them. He is indifferent 
as to the means taken to accomplish this. He would be happy himself 
to serve, or even to take the initiative in its accomplishment, in any 
way that might prove acceptable, but he has no desire to determine 
the method or the instrumentality. One way will be as acceptable 
to him as another, if only the great object he has in mind be 
attained. 

He takes the liberty of calling attention to the fact that the objects, 
which the statesmen of the belligerents on both sides have in mind in 
this war, are virtually the same, as stated in general terms to their 
own people and to the world. Each side desires to make the rights 
and privileges of weak peoples and small States as secure against 
aggression or denial in the future as the rights and privileges of the 
great and powerful States now at war. Each wishes itself to be made 
secure in the future, along with all other nations and peoples, against 
the recurrence of wars like this and against aggression or selfish inter- 
ference of any kind. Each would be jealous of the formation of any 
more rival leagues to preserve an uncertain balance of power amid 
multiplying suspicions; but each is ready to consider the formation 
of a league of nations to insure peace and justice throughout the 
world. Before that final step can be taken, however, each deems it 
necessary first to settle the issues of the present war upon terms which 
will certainly safeguard the independence, the territorial integrity, 

[4] 



49 

and the political and commercial freedom of the nations involved. 

In the measures to be taken to secure the future peace of the world 
the people and Government of the United States are as vitally and 
as directly interested as the Governments now at war. Their interest, 
moreover, in the means to be adopted to relieve the smaller and 
weaker peoples of the world of the peril of wrong and violence, is as 
quick and ardent as that of any other people or Government. They 
stand ready, and even eager, to cooperate in the accomplishment of 
these ends, when the war is over, with every influence and resource 
at their command. But the war must first be concluded. The terms 
upon which it is to be concluded they are not at liberty to suggest; 
but the President does feel that it is his right and his duty to point 
out their intimate interest in its conclusions, lest it should presently 
be too late to accomplish the greater things which lie beyond its con- 
clusion, lest the situation of neutral nations, now exceedingly hard 
to endure, be rendered altogether intolerable, and lest, more than all, 
an injury be done civilization itself which can never be atoned for or 
repaired. 

The President therefore feels altogether justified in suggesting an 
immediate opportunity for a comparison of views as to the terms 
which must precede those ultimate arrangements for the peace of the 
world, which all desire and in which the neutral nations as well as 
those at war are ready to play their full responsible part. If the con- 
test must continue to proceed toward undefined ends by slow attrition 
until the one group of belligerents or the other is exhausted; if million 
after million of human lives must continue to be offered up until on 
the one side or the other there are no more to offer; if resentments 
must be kindled that can never cool, and despairs engendered from 
which there can be no recovery, hopes of peace and of the willing 
concert of free peoples will be rendered vain and idle. 

The life of the entire world has been profoundly affected. Every 
part of the great family of mankind has felt the burden and terror of 
this unprecedented contest of arms. No nation in the civilized world 
can be said in truth to stand outside its influence or to be safe against 
its disturbing effects. And yet the concrete objects for which it is 
being waged have never been definitely stated. 

The leaders of the several belligerents have, as has been said, stated 
those objects in general terms. But, stated in general terms, they 
seem the same on both sides. Never yet have the authoritative 
spokesmen of either side avowed the precise objects which would, if 
attained, satisfy them and their people that the war had been fought 
out. The world has been left to conjecture what definitive results, 
what actual exchange of guaranties, what political or territorial 
changes or readjustments, what stage of military success, even, would 
bring the war to an end. 

[5] 



so 



It may be that peace is nearer than we know; that the terms which 
the belligerents on the one side and on the other would deem it neces- 
sary to insist upon are not so irreconcilable as some have feared; that 
an interchange of views would clear the way at least for conference 
and make the permanent concord of the nations a hope of the imme- 
diate future, a concert of nations immediately practicable. 

The President is not proposing peace; he is not even offering media- 
tion. He is merely proposing that soundings be taken in order that 
we may learn, the neutral nations with the belligerent, how near 
the haven of peace may be for which all mankind longs with an intense 
and increasing longing. He believes that the spirit in which he speaks 
and the objects which he seeks will be understood by all concerned, 
and he confidently hopes for a response which will bring a new light 
into the affairs of the world. 

LANSING 



[Copies of the above will be delivered to all neutral Governments for 
their information.] 



[6] 



51 



11 

The German Note of December 26, 191 6, 
Replying to President Wilson's Note of 
December 18 

The high-minded suggestion made by the President of the United 
States of America in order to create a basis for the estabHshment of 
a lasting peace has been received and considered by the Imperial 
Government in the friendly spirit which was expressed in the Presi- 
dent's communication. 

The President points out that which he has at heart and leaves 
open the choice of road. To the Imperial Government an immediate 
exchange of views seems to be the most appropriate road in order to 
reach the desired result. It begs, therefore, in the sense of the declar- 
ation made on December 12, which offered a hand for peace nego- 
tiations, to propose an immediate meeting of delegates of the belliger- 
ent States at a neutral place. 

The Imperial Government is also of the opinion that the great 
work of preventing future wars can be begun only after the end of 
the present struggle of the nations. It will, when this moment shall 
have come, be ready with pleasure to collaborate entirely with the 
United States in this exalted task. 



[71 



52 



III 

Entente Reply to President Wilson's Note 

AMBASSADOR SHARP TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE 

{Telegram) 

No. 1806.] American Embassy, 

Paris, January 10, 1917. 

The following is the translation of the French note: 

The Allied Governments have received the note which was deliv- 
ered to them in the name of the Government of the United States on 
the nineteenth of December, 19 16. They have studied it with the 
care imposed upon them both by the exact realization which they 
have of the gravity of the hour and by the sincere friendship which 
attaches them to the American people. 

In general way they wish to declare that they pay tribute to the 
elevation of the sentiment with which the American note is inspired 
and that they associate themselves with all their hopes with the 
project for the creation of a league of nations to insure peace and 
justice throughout the world. They recognize all the advantages 
for the cause of humanity and civilization which the institution of 
international agreements, destined to avoid violent conflicts between 
nations would prevent; agreements which must imply the sanc- 
tions necessary to insure their execution and thus to prevent an 
apparent security from only facilitating new aggressions. But a dis- 
cussion of future arrangements destined to insure an enduring peace 
presupi>oses a satisfactory settlement of the actual conflict; the 
Allies have as profound a desire as the Government of the United 
States to terminate as soon as possible a war for which the Central 
Empires are responsible and which inflicts such cruel sufferings upon 
humanity. But they believe that it is impossible at the present 
moment to attain a peace which will assure them reparation, resti- 
tution and such guarantees to which they are entitled by the aggres- 
sion for which the responsibility rests with the Central Powers and 
of which the principle itself tended to ruin the security of Europe; a 
peace which would on the other hand permit the establishment of 

[8] 



53 

the future of European nations on a solid basis. The Allied nations' 
are conscious that they are not fighting for selfish interests, but above 
all to safeguard the independence of peoples, of right and of humanity. 

The Allies are fully aware of the losses and suffering which the 
war causes to neutrals as well as to belligerents and they deplore 
them; but they do not hold themselves responsible for them, having 
in no way either willed or provoked this war, and they strive to re- 
duce these damages in the measure compatible with the inexorable 
exigencies of their defense against the violence and the wiles of the 
enemy. 

It is with satisfaction, therefore, that they take note of the declar- 
ation that the American communication is in nowise associated in its 
origin with that of the Central Powers transmitted on the eighteenth 
of December by the Government of the United States. They did not 
doubt, moreover, the resolution of that Government to avoid even 
the appearance of a support, even moral, of the authors responsible 
for the war. 

The Allied Governments believe that they must protest in the 
most friendly but in the most specific manner against the assimi- 
lation established in the American note between the two groups of 
belligerents; this assimilation, based upon public declarations by 
the Central Powers, is in direct opposition to the evidence, both as 
regards responsibility for the past and as concerns guarantees for 
the future; President Wilson in mentioning it certainly had no 
intention of associating himself with it. 

If there is an historial fact established at the present date, it is 
the willful aggression of Germany and Austria-Hungary to insure 
their hegemony over Europe and their economic domination over 
the world. Germany proved by her declaration of war, by the im- 
mediate violation of Belgium and Luxemburg and by her manner 
of conducting the war, her simulating contempt for all principles of 
humanity and all respect for small states; as the conflict developed 
the attitude of the Central Powers and their Allies has been a con- 
tinual defiance of humanity and civilization. Is it necessary to recall 
the horrors which accompanied the invasion of Belgium and of 
Servia, the atrocious regime imposed upon the invaded countries, 
the massacre of hundreds of thousands of inoffensive Armenians, the 
barbarities perpetrated against the populations of Syria, the raids of 
Zeppelins on open towns, the destruction by submarines of passenger 
steamers and of merchantmen even under neutral flags, the cruel 
treatment inflicted upon prisoners of war, the juridical murders of 
Miss Cavel, of Captain Fryatt, the deportation and the reduction to 
slavery of civil populations, et cetera? The execution of such a series 
of crimes perpetrated without any regard for universal reprobation 
fully explains to President Wilson the protest of the Allies. 

I9l 



54 

They consider that the note which they sent to the United States 
in reply to the German note will be a response to the questions put 
by the American Government, and according to the exact words of 
the latter, constitute 'a public declaration as to the conditions upon 
which the war could be terminated*. 

President Wilson desires more: he desires that the belligerent 
powers openly affirm the objects which they seek by continuing the 
war; the Allies experience no difficulty in replying to this request. 
Their objects in the war are well known; they have been formulated 
on many occasions by the chiefs of their divers Governments. Their 
objects in the war will not be made known in detail with all the 
equitable compensations and indemnities for damages suffered until 
the hour of negotiations. But the civilized world knows that they 
imply in all necessity and in the first instance the restoration of 
Belgium, of Servia, and of Montenegro and the indemnities which 
are due them; the evacuation of the invaded territories of France, 
of Russia and of Roumania with just reparation; the reorganization 
of Europe guaranteed by a stable regime and founded as much upon 
respect of nationalities and full security and Uberty of economic devel- 
opment, which all nations, great or small, possess, as upon territorial 
conventions and international agreements suitable to guarantee ter- 
ritorial and maritime frontiers against unjustified attacks; the res- 
titution of provinces or territories wrested in the past from the 
Allies by force or against the will of their populations, the liberation 
of Italians, of Slavs, of Roumanians and of Tcheco Slovaques from 
foreign domination; the enfranchisement of populations subject to 
the bloody t3rranny of the Turks; the expulsion from Europe of the 
Ottoman Empire decidedly (* * *)' to western civilization. The 
intentions of His Majesty the Emperor of Russia regarding Poland 
have been clearly indicated in the proclamation which he has just 
addressed to his armies. It goes without saying that if the Allies 
wish to liberate Europe from the brutal covetousness of Prussian 
militarism, it never has been their design, as has been alleged, to 
encompass the extermination of the German peoples and their polit- 
ical disappearance. That which they desire above all is to insure a 
peace upon the principles of liberty and justice, upon the inviolable 
fidelity to international obligation with which the Government of 
the United States has never ceased to be inspired. 

United in the pursuits of this supreme object the Allies are deter- 
mined, individually and collectively, to act with all their power and 
to consent to all sacrifices to bring to a victorious close a conflict 
upon which they are convinced not only their own safety and pros- 
perity depends but also the future of civilization itself. 

Sharp 
'Apparent omission 

[10] 



55 



Reponse des gouvernements allies a la note 
americaine du 19 decembre 191 6 

1. Les Gouvernements allies ont regu la note qui leur a ete remise 
le dix-neuf decembre 1916 au nom du Gouvernement des Etats-Unis. 
lis I'ont etudiee avec le soin que leur commandaient a la fois I'exact 
sentiment qu'ils ont de la gravite de I'heure et la sincere amitie qui 
les rattache au peuple americain. 

2. D'une maniere generate ils tiennent k declarer qu'ils rendent 
hommage a I'elevation des sentiments dont s'inspire la note americaine 
et qu'ils s'associent de tous leurs voeux au projet de creation d'une 
ligue des nations pour assurer la paix et la justice a travers le monde. 
lis reconnaissent tous les avantages que presentera, pour la cause de 
I'humanite et de la civilisation, institution de r.glements interna- 
tionaux destines a eviter des conflits violents entre les nations, regle- 
ments qui devraient comporter les sanctions necessaires pour en 
assurer I'execution et emp^cher ainsi qu'une securite apparente ne 
serve qu'i faciliter de nouvelles agressions. 

3. Mais une discussion sur les arrangements futurs destines a 
assurer une paix durable suppose d'abord un reglement satisfaisant 
du conflit actuel. Les Allies eprouvent un desir aussi profond que le 
Gouvernement des Etats-Unis de voir se terminer, le plus tot pos- 
sible, la guerre dont les empires centraux sont responsables et qui 
inflige §, I'humanite de si cruelles souffrances. Mais ils estiment qu'il 
est impossible, dds aujourd'hui, de realiser une paix qui leur assure 
les reparations, les restitutions et les garantiesa uxquelles leur donne 
droit I'agression dont la responsabilite incombe aux Puissances cen- 
trales et dont le principe meme tendait a miner la securite de 1' Eu- 
rope, une paix qui permette, d'autre part, d'etablir sur une base solide 
I'avenir des nations europeennes. Les nations alliees ont conscience 
qu'elles ne combattent pas pour des interets egoistes, mais avant 
tout pour la sauvegarde de I'independance des peuples, du droit et 
de I'humanite. 

4. Les Allies se rendent pleinement compte des pertes et des 
souffrances que la guerre fait supporter aux neutres comme aux belli- 
gerants, et ils les deplorent; mais ils ne s'en tiennent pas pour respon- 
sables, n'ayant en aucune fagon ni voulu ni provoque cette guerre, 
et ils s'efforcent de reduire ces dommages dans tout la mesure com- 
patible avec les exigences inexorables de leur defense contre les 
violences et les pidges de I'ennemi. 

[II] 



56 

S- C'est avec satisfaction, des lors, qu'ils prerment acte de la 
declaration faite que la communication americaine n'est associee 
d'aucune maniere dans son origine avec celle des Puissances centrales 
transmise le 18 decembre par le Gouvernement de rUnion. lis ne 
doutaient pas, au surplus, de la resolution de ce Gouvernement d'ev- 
iter jusqu'a I'apparence d'un appui m€me moral, accorde aux auteurs 
responsables de la guerre. 

6. Les Gouvernements allies croient devoir s'elever, de la maniere 
la plus amicale mais la plus nette, centre I'assimilation etablie dans 
la note americaine entre les deux groupes des belligerants; cette assim- 
ilation, basee sur des declarations publiques des Puissances centrales, 
est en opposition directe avec I'evidence, tant en ce qui conceme les 
responsabilites du passe qu'en ce qui conceme les garanties de I'avenir; 
le President Wilson en la mentionnant n'a certainement pas entendu 
s'y associer. 

7. S'il y a un fait historique etabli a I'heure actuelle, c'est la 
volonte d'agression de I'AUemagne et de I'Autriche-Hongrie pour 
assurer leur hegemonic sur I'Europe et leur domination economique 
sur le monde. L'Allemagne a, par la declaration de guerre, par la 
violation de la Belgique et du Luxembourg, et par la fagon dont elle a 
conduit la lutte, manifeste son mepris de tout principe d'humanite et 
de tout respect pour les petits etats; a mesure que le confiit a evolue 
I'attitude des Puissances centrales et de leurs allies a ete un continuel 
defi a I'humanite et a la civilisation. Faut-il rappeler les horreurs qui 
ont accompagne I'invasion de la Belgique et de la Serbie, le regime 
atroce impose aux pays envahis, le massacre des centaines de milliers 
d'Armeniens inoffensifs, les barbaries exercees contre les populations 
de Syrie, les raids des Zeppelins sur les villes ouvertes, la destruction 
par les sous-marins de paquebots et de navires marchands, m^me 
sous pavilion neutre, le cruel traitement infiige aux prisonniers de 
guerre, les meurtres juridiques de Miss Cavell et du Capitaine Fryatt, 
la deportation et la reduction en esclavage des populations civiles, etc. 

L'execution d'une pareille serie de crimes, perpetres sans aucun 
souci de la reprobation universelle, explique amplement au President 
Wilson la protestation des Allies. 

8. lis estiment que la note qu'ils ont remise aux Etats-Unis, en 
replique ^ la note allemande, r^pond a la question posee par le Gou- 
vernement americain et constitue, suivant les propres expressions 
de ce dernier, "une declaration publique quant aux conditions aux- 
quelles la guerre pourrait €tre terminee. " 

9. M. Wilson souhaite davantage. II desire que les Puissances 
belligerantes affirment, en plein lumiere, les buts qu'elles se proposent 
en poursuivant la guerre; les Allies n'eprouvent aucune difficulte a 
repondre a cette demande. Leurs buts de guerre sont bien connus: 
ils ont ete formules £L plusieurs reprises par les chefs de leurs divers 

[12] 



57 

Gouvernements. Ces buts de guerre ne seront exposes dans le detail, 
avec toutes les compensations et indemnites equitables pour les dom- 
mages subis, qu'a I'heure des negociations. Mais le monde civilise 
sait qu'ils impliquent, de toute necessite et en premidre ligne, la res- 
tauration de la Belgique, de la Serbie et du Montenegro et les dedom- 
magements qui leur sont dus; I'evacuation des territoires envahis en 
France, en Russie, en Roumanie, avec de justes reparations; la reor- 
ganisation de I'Europe, garantie par un regime stable et fondee 
la fois sur le respect des nationalites et sur les droits & la pleine se- 
curite et a la liberte de developpement economique que possedent 
tous les peuples, petits et grands, et en meme temps sur des conven- 
tions territoriales et des reglements internationaux propres a garantir 
les frontieres terrestres et maritimes contre des attaques injustifiees; 
la restitution des provinces ou territoires autrefois arraches aux 
Allies par la force ou contre le voeu des populations; la liberation des 
Italiens, des Slaves, des Roumains et des Tcheco-Slovaques, de la 
domination etrangere; I'affranchissement des populations soumises 
a la sanglante tyrannie des Turcs; le rejet hors d'Europe de I'Empire 
ottoman, decidement etranger a la civilisation occidentale. 

Les intentions de Sa Majeste I'Empereur de Russie a I'egard de 
la Pologne ont ete clairement indiquees par la proclamation qu'il 
vient d'adresser a ses armees. 

10. II va sans dire que si les Allies veulent soustraire I'Europe 
aux convoitises brutales du militarisme prussien, il n'a jamais ete 
dans leurs desseins de poursuivre, comme on I'a pretendu, I'extermina- 
tion des peuples allemands et leur disparition politique. Ce qu'ils 
veulent avant tout, c'est assurer la paix sur les principes de liberte et 
de justice, sur la fidelite inviolable aux obligations internationales 
dont n'a cesse de s'inspirer le Gouvernement des Etats-Unis. 

11. Unis dans la poursuite de ce but superieur, les Allies sont 
determines, chacun, et solidairement, a agir de tout leur pouvoir et a 
consentir tous les sacrifices pour mener a une fin victorieuse un confiit 
dont lis sont convaincus que dependent non seulement leur propre 
salut et leur prosperite, mais I'avenir de la civilisation mgme. 

Paris, le lo Janvier 191 7. 



[13] 



58 



IV 

Text of New Note from Great Britain Concern- 
ing Peace Sent in Amplification of Allied Reply 
to President Wilson 

London, January 13. 
His excellency tJie Right Honorable Sir Cecil Spring-Rice: 

In sending you a translation of the allied note I desire to make 
the following observations, which you should bring to the notice of 
the United States Government: 

I gather from the general tenor of the President's note that, while 
he is animated by an intense desire that peace should come soon and 
that when it comes it should be lasting, he does not, for the moment 
at least, concern himself with the terms on which it should be ar- 
ranged. His Majesty's Government entirely share the President's 
ideas; but they feel strongly that the durability of peace must largely 
depend on its character, and that no stable system of international 
relations can be built on foundations which are essentially and 
hopelessly defective. 

This becomes clearly apparent if we consider the main conditions 
which rendered possible the calamities from which the world is now 
suffering. These were the existence of great powers consumed with 
the lust of domination in the midst of a community of nations ill- 
prepared for defense, plentifully supplied, indeed, with international 
laws, but with no machinery for enforcing them, and weakened by 
the fact that neither the boundaries of the various States nor their 
internal constitution harmonized with the aspirations of their con- 
stituent races or secured to them just and equal treatment. 

That this last evil would be greatly mitigated if the Allies secured 
the changes in the map of Europe outlined in their joint note is 
manifest, and I need not labor the point. 

It has been argued, indeed, that the expulsion of the Turks from 
Europe forms no proper or logical part of this general scheme. The 
maintenance of the Turkish Empire was, during many generations, 
regarded by statesmen of world-wide authority as essential to the 
maintenance of European peace. Why, is it asked, should the cause 

(14) 



59 

of peace be now associated with a complete reversal of this traditional 
policy? 

The answer is that circumstances have completely changed. It 
is unnecessary to consider now whether the creation of a reformed 
Turkey, mediating between hostile races in the Near East, was a 
scheme which, had the Sultan been sincere and the Powers united, 
could ever have been realized. It certainly cannot be realized now. 
The Turkey of "Union and Progress" is at least as barbarous and is 
far more aggressive than the Turkey of Sultan Abdul Hamid. In the 
hands of Germany it has ceased even in appearance to be a bulwark 
of peace, and is openly used as an instrument of conquest. Under 
German officers, Turkish soldiers are now fighting in lands from which 
they had long been expelled, and a Turkish Government controlled, 
subsidized, and supported by Germany has been guilty of massacres 
in Armenia and Syria more horrible than any recorded in the history 
even of those unhappy countries. Evidently the interests of peace 
and the claims of nationality alike require that Turkish rule over 
alien races shall, if possible, be brought to an end, and we may 
hope that the expulsion of Turkey from Europe will contribute as 
much to the cause of peace as the restoration of Alsace-Lorraine to 
France, or Italia Irredenta to Italy, or any of the territorial changes 
indicated in the allied note. 

Evidently, however, such territorial rearrangements, though they 
may diminish the occasions of war, provide no sufficient security 
against its recurrence. If Germany, or rather, those in Germany 
who mould its opinions and control its destinies, again set out to 
domineer the world, they may find that by the new order of things 
the adventure is made more difficult, but hardly that it is made 
impossible. They may still have ready to their hand a political 
system organized through and through on a military basis; they 
may still accumulate vast stores of military equipment; they may 
still persist in their methods of attack, so that their more pacific 
neighbors will be struck down before they can prepare themselves 
for defense. If so, Europe, when the war is over, will be far poorer 
in men, in money, and in mutual good-will than it was when the war 
began, but it will not be safer; and the hopes for the future of the 
world entertained by the President will be as far as ever from ful- 
fillment. 

There are those who think that for this disease international treaties 
and international laws may provide a sufficient cure. But such 
persons have ill-learned the lessons so clearly taught by recent his- 
tory. While other nations, notably the United States of America 
and Britain, were striving by treaties of arbitration to make sure 
that no chance quarrel should mar the peace they desired to make 
perpetual, Germany stood aloof. Her historians and philosophers 

[15] 



6o 

preached the splendors of war; power was proclaimed as the true 
end of the State; and the General Staff forged with untiring industry 
the weapons by which at the appointed moment power might be 
achieved. These facts proved clearly enough that treaty arrange- 
ments for maintaining peace were not likely to find much favor at 
Berlin; they did not prove that such treaties, once made, would be 
utterly ineffectual. This became evident only when war had broken 
out, though the sought demonstration, when it came, was over- 
whelming. So long as Germany remains the Germany which, with- 
out a shadow of justification, overran and barbarously ill-treated a 
country it was pledged to defend, no State can regard its rights as 
secure if they have no better protection than a solemn treaty. 

The case is made worse by the reflection that these methods of 
calculated brutality were designed by the Central Powers, not merely 
to crush to the dust those with whom they were at war, but to in- 
timidate those with whom they were still at peace. Belgium was 
still at peace. Belgium was not only a victim, it was an example. 
Neutrals were intended to note the outrages which accompanied its 
conquest, the reign of terror which followed on its occupation, the 
deportation of a portion of its population, the cruel oppression of the 
remainder. And, lest the nations happily protected either by British 
fleets or by their own from German armies, should suppose them- 
selves safe from German methods, the submarine has (within its 
limits) assiduously imitated the barbarous practices of the sister 
service. The war staffs of the Central Powers are well content to 
horrify the world if at the same time they can terrorize it. 

If, then, the Central Powers succeed, it will be to methods like 
these that they will owe their success. How can any reform of inter- 
national relations be based on a peace thus obtained? Such a peace 
would represent the triumph of all the forces which make war cer- 
tain and make it brutal. It would advertise the futility of all the 
methods on which civilization relies to eliminate the occasions of 
international dispute and to mitigate their ferocity. Germany and 
Austria made the present war inevitable by attacking the rights of 
one small State, and they gained their initial triumphs by violating 
the treaty guarantees of the territories of another. Are small States 
going to find in them their protectors or in treaties made by them a 
bulwark against aggression? Terrorism by land and sea will have 
proved itself the instrument of victory. Are the victors likely to 
abandon it on the appeal of neutrals? If existing treaties are no 
more than scraps of paper, can fresh treaties help us? If they be 
crowned with success, will it not be in vain that the assembled na- 
tions labor to improve their code? None will profit by their rules 
but Powers who break them. It is those who keep them that will 
suffer. 

(161 



6i 

Though, therefore, the people of this country share to the full the 
desire of the President for peace, they do not believe peace can be 
durable if it be not based on the success of the allied cause. For a 
durable peace can hardly be expected unless three conditions are 
fulfilled: The first is that existing causes of international unrest 
should be, as far as possible, removed or weakened ; the second is that 
the aggressive aims and the unscrupulous methods of the Central 
Powers should fall into disrepute among their own peoples; the 
third is that behind international law and behind all treaty arrange- 
ments for preventing or limiting hostilities some form of international 
sanction should be devised which would give pause to the hardiest 
aggressor. 

These conditions may be difficult of fulfillment. But we believe 
them to be in general harmony with the President's ideas, and we are 
confident that none of them can be satisfied, even imperfectly, 
unless peace be secured on the general lines indicated (so far as 
Europe is concerned) in the joint note. Therefore it is that this 
country has made, is making, and is prepared to make sacrifices of 
blood and treasure unparalleled in its history. It bears these heavy 
burdens, not merely that it may thus fulfill its treaty obligations, nor 
yet that it may secure a barren triumph of one group of nations over 
another. It bears them because it firmly believes that on the success 
of the Allies depend the prospects of peaceful civilization and of 
those international reforms which the best thinkers of the New 
World, as of the Old, dare to hope may follow on the cessation of our 
present calamities. 

ARTHUR J. BALFOUR 



[17] 



62 



V 

Text of President Wilson's Address to the Senate 

WASHINGTON, January 22— The President's address to the 
Senate to-day was as follows: 

Gentlemen of the Senate: On the i8th of December last I 
addressed an identic note to the Governments of the nations now at 
war requesting them to state, more definitely than they had yet been 
stated by either group of belUgerents, the terms upon which they 
would deem it possible to make peace. I spoke on behalf of human- 
ity and of the rights of all neutral nations like our own, many of 
whose most vital interests the war puts in constant jeopardy. 

The Central Powers united in a reply which stated merely that 
they were ready to meet their antagonists in conference to discuss 
terms of peace. 

The Entente Powers have replied much more definitely, and have 
stated, in general terms, indeed, but with sufficient definiteness to 
imply details, the arrangements, guarantees, and acts of reparation 
which they deem to be the indispensable conditions of a satisfactory 
settlement. 

We are that much nearer a definite discussion of the peace which 
shall end the present war. We are that much nearer the discussion 
of the international concert which must thereafter hold the world 
at peace. In every discussion of the peace that must end this war 
it is taken for granted that that peace must be followed by some 
definite concert of power, which will make it virtually impossible 
that any such catastrophe should ever overwhelm us again. Every 
lover of mankind, every sane and thoughtful man, must take that 
for granted. 

I have sought this opportunity to address you because I thought 
that I owed it to you, as the council associated with me in the final 
determination of our international obligations, to disclose to you 
without reserve the thought and purpose that have been taking form 
in my mind in regard to the duty of our Government in those days 
to come when it will be necessary to lay afresh and upon a new plan 
the foundations of peace among the nations. 

It is inconceivable that the people of the United States should play 
no part in that great enterprise. To take part in such a service will 

[18] 



63 

be the opportunity for which they have sougnt to prepare themselves 
by the very principles and purposes of their polity and the approved 
practices of their Government, ever since the days when they set up 
a new nation in the high and honorable hope that it might in all that 
it was and did show mankind the way to liberty. They cannot, 
in honor, withhold the service to which they are now about to be 
challenged. They do not wish to withhold it. But they owe it to 
themselves and to the other nations of the world to state the con- 
ditions under which they will feel free to render it. 

That service is nothing less than this — to add their authority and 
their power to the authority and force of other nations to guarantee 
peace and justice throughout the world. Such a settlement cannot 
now be long postponed. It is right that before it comes this Govern- 
ment should frankly formulate the conditions upon which it would 
feel justified in asking our people to approve its formal and solemn 
adherence to a league for peace. I am here to attempt to state those 
conditions. 

The present war must first be ended, but we owe it to candor and 
to a just regard for the opinion of mankind to say that, so far as our 
participation in guarantees of future peace is concerned, it makes a 
great deal of difference in what way and upon what terms it is ended. 
The treaties and agreements which bring it to an end must embody 
terms which will create a peace that is worth guaranteeing and pre- 
serving, a peace that will win the approval of mankind, not merely a 
peace that will serve the several interests and immediate aims of the 
nations engaged. 

We shall have no voice in determining what those terms shall be, 
but we shall, I feel sure, have a voice in determining whether they 
shall be made lasting or not by the guarantees of a universal cove- 
nant, and our judgment upon what is fundamental and essential as a 
condition precedent to permanency should be spoken now, not after- 
ward, when it may be too late. 

No covenant of cooperative peace that does not include the 
peoples of the new world can suffice to keep the future safe against 
war, and yet there is only one sort of peace that the peoples of America 
could join in guaranteeing. 

The elements of that peace must be elements that engage the con- 
fidence and satisfy the principles of the American Governments, 
elements consistent with their political faith and the practical con- 
viction which the peoples of America have once for all embraced and 
undertaken to defend. 

I do not mean to say that any American Government would throw 
any obstacle in the way of any terms of peace the Governments now 
at war might agree upon, or seek to upset them when made, what- 
ever they might be. I only take it for granted that mere terms of 

[19] 



64 

peace between the belligerents will not satisfy even the belligerents 
themselves. Mere agreements may not make peace secure. It will 
be absolutely necessary that a force be created as a guarantor of the 
permanency of the settlement so much greater than the force of any 
nation now engaged or any alliance hitherto formed or projected, 
that no nation, no probable combination of nations, could face or 
withstand it. If the peace presently to be made is to endure, it must 
be a peace made secure by the organized major force of mankind. 

The terms of the immediate peace agreed upon will determine 
whether it is a peace for which such a guarantee can be secured. The 
question upon which the whole future peace and policy of the world 
depends is this: 

Is the present war a struggle for a just and secure peace or only for 
a new balance of power? If it be only a struggle for a new balance 
of power, who will guarantee, who can guarantee, the stable equi- 
librium of the new arrangement? Only a tranquil Europe can be a 
stable Europe. There must be not only a balance of power, but a 
community of power; not organized rivalries, but an organized 
common peace. 

Fortunately, we have received very explicit assurances on this 
point. The statesmen of both of the groups of nations, now arrayed 
against one another, have said, in terras that could not be misin- 
terpreted, that it was no part of the purpose they had in mind to 
crush their antagonists. But the implication of these assurances 
may not be equally clear to all, may not be the same on both sides of 
the water. I think it will be serviceable if I attempt to set forth 
what we understand them to be. 

They imply, first of all, that it must be a peace without victory. 
It is not pleasant to say this. I beg that I may be permitted to put 
my own interpretation upon it and that it may be understood that 
no other interpretation was in my thought. I am seeking only to 
face realities and to face them without soft concealments. Victory 
would mean peace forced upon the loser, a victor's terms imposed 
upon the vanquished. It would be accepted in humiliation, under 
duress, at an intolerable sacrifice, and would leave a sting, a resent- 
ment, a bitter memory, upon which terms of peace would rest, not 
permanently, but only as upon quicksand. 

Only a peace between equals can last; only a peace the very 
principle of which is equality and a common participation in a com- 
mon benefit. The right [state of mind, the right feeling, between 
nations, is] * as necessary for a lasting peace as is the just settlement 
of vexed questions of territory or of racial and national allegiance. 

The equality of nations upon which peace must be founded, if it 
is to last, must be an equality of rights; the guau^ntees exchanged 
>A8 printed in the New York World, January 23, I9i7> 

lao] 



65 

must neither recognize xior imply a difference between big nations 
and small, between those that are powerful and those that are weak. 
Right must be based upon the common strength, not upon the indi- 
vidual strength, of the nations upon whose concert peace will depend. 

Equality of territory, of resources, there, of course, cannot be; 
nor any other sort of equality not gained in the ordinary peaceful 
and legitimate development of the peoples themselves. But no one 
asks or expects anything more than an equality of rights. Mankind 
is looking now for freedom of life, not for equipoises of power. 

And there is a deeper thing involved than even equality of rights 
among organized nations. No peace can last, or ought to last, which 
does not recognize and accept the principle that Governments de- 
rive all their just powers from the consent of the governed, and that 
no right anywhere exists to hand peoples about from sovereignty to 
sovereignty as if they were property. 

I take it for granted, for instance, if I may venture upon a single 
example, that statesmen everywhere are agreed that there should be 
a united, independent, and autonomous Poland, and that hence- 
forth inviolable security of life, of worship, and of industrial and 
social development should be guaranteed to all peoples who have 
lived hitherto under the power of Governments devoted to a faith 
and purpose hostile to their own. 

I speak of this not because of any desire to exalt an abstract 
political principle which has always been held very dear by those 
who have sought to build up liberty in America, but for the same 
reason that I have spoken of the other conditions of peace, which 
seem to me clearly indispensable — because I wish frankly to uncover 
realities. Any peace which does not recognize and accept this prin- 
ciple will inevitably be upset. It will not rest upon the affections or 
the convictions of mankind. The ferment of spirit of whole popu- 
lations will fight subtly and constantly against it, and all the world 
will sympathize. The world can be at peace only if its life is stable, 
and there can be no stability where the will is in rebellion, where there 
is not tranquility of spirit and a sense of justice, of freedom, and of 
right. 

So far as practicable, moreover, every great people now struggling 
toward a full development of its resources and of its powers should be 
assured a direct outlet to the great highways of the sea. Where this 
cannot be done by the cession of territory it can no doubt be done 
by the neutralization of direct rights of way under the general guar- 
antee which will assure the peace itself. With a right comity of 
arrangement no nation need by shut away from free access to the 
open paths of the world's commerce. 

And the paths of the sea must alike in law and in fact be free. 
The freedom of the seas is the sine qua non of peace, equality, and co- 

[21] 



66 

operation. No doubt a somewhat radical reconsideration of many of 
the rules of international practice hitherto sought to be established 
may be necessary in order to make the seas indeed free and common 
in practically all circumstances for the use of mankind, but the 
motive for such changes is convincing and compelling. There can be 
no trust or intimacy between the peoples of the world without them. 

The free, constant, unthreatened intercourse of nations is an essen- 
tial part of the process of peace and of development. It need not be 
difficult to define or to secure the freedom of the seas if the Govern- 
ments of the world sincerely desire to come to an agreement concern- 
ing it. 

It is a problem closely connected with the limitation of naval 
armaments and the cooperation of the navies of the world in keep- 
ing the seas at once free and safe. 

And the question of limiting naval armaments opens the wider 
and perhaps more difficult question of the limitation of armies and 
of all programs of military preparation. Difficult and delicate as 
those questions are, they must be faced with the utmost candor 
and decided in a spirit of real accommodation if peace is to come 
with healing in its wings and come to stay. 

Peace cannot be had without concession and sacrifice. There can 
be no sense of safety and equality among the nations if great pre- 
ponderating armies are henceforth to continue here and there to be 
built up and maintained. The statesmen of the world must plan 
for peace and nations must adjust and accommodate their policy 
to it as they have plarmed for war and made ready for pitiless con- 
test and rivalry. The question of armaments, whether on land or 
sea, is the most immediately and intensely practical question con- 
nected with the future fortunes of nations and of mankind. 

I have spoken upon these great matters without reserve and with 
the utmost explicitness because it has seemed to me to be necessary 
if the world's yearning desire for peace was anywhere to find free voice 
and utterance. Perhaps I am the only person in high authority 
among all the peoples of the world who is at liberty to speak and 
hold nothing back. I am speaking as an individual, and yet I am 
speaking also, of course, as the responsible head of a great Govern- 
ment, and I feel confident that I have said what the people of the 
United States would wish me to say. 

May I not add that I hope and believe that I am, in effect, speak- 
ing for liberals and friends of humanity in every nation and of every 
program of liberty? I would fain believe that I am speaking for 
the silent mass of mankind everywhere who have as yet had no 
place or opportunity to speak their real hearts out concerning the 
death and ruin they see to have come already upon the persons and 
the homes they hold most dear. 

[22] 



67 

And in holding out the expectation that the people and the Gov- 
ernment of the United States will join the other civilized nations of 
the world in guaranteeing the permanence of peace upon such terms 
as I have named, I speak with the greater boldness and confidence 
because it is clear to every man who can think that there is in this 
promise no breach in either our traditions or our policy as a nation, 
but a fulfillment rather of all that we have professed or striven for. 

I am proposing, as it were, that the nations should with one 
accord adopt the doctrine of President Monroe as the doctrine of 
the world : That no natidn should seek to extend its policy over any 
other nation or people, but that every people should be left free to 
determine its own policy, its own way of development, unhindered, 
unthreatened, unafraid, the little along with the great and powerful. 

I am proposing that all nations henceforth avoid entangling alli- 
ances which would draw them into competition of power, catch them 
in a net of intrigue and selfish rivalry, and disturb their own affairs 
with influences intruded from without. There is no entangling alli- 
ance in a concert of power. When all unite to act in the same sense 
and with the same purpose, all act in the common interest and are 
free to live their own lives under a common protection. 

I am proposing government by the consent of the governed; that 
freedom of the seas which in international conference after conference 
representatives of the United States have urged with the eloquence of 
those who are the convinced disciples of liberty; and that moderation 
of armaments which makes of armies and navies a power for order 
merely, not an instrument of aggression or of selfish violence. 

These are American principles, American policies. We can stand 
for no others. And they are also the principles and policies of forward- 
looking men and women everywhere, of every modern nation, of 
every enlightened community. They are the principles of mankind 
and must prevail. 



l23l 



International Conciliation 



Published monthly by the 
American Association for International Conciliation. 
Entered as second class matter at New York, N. Y., 
Postoffice, February 23, 1909, under act of July 16, 1894. 



WHAT IS A NATIONALITY? 
(The Principle of Nationality) 

Part II 




THEODORE RUYSSEN 

Translated by John Mez 

MARCH, 1917 
No. 112 



AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR INTERNATIONAL CONCILIATION 

SUB-STATION 84 (407 WEST II7TH STREET) 

NEW YORK CITY 



71 



WHAT IS A NATIONALITY?! 

For one thing, the term * nationahty ' is at once akin 
to and distinct from the term 'nation'. It is worth 
noting that the former term is by far the more recent. 
Nation is a very old word, derived from the Latin; 
nationahty, on the other hand, appears for the first 
time in the dictionary of the French Academy in the 
edition of 1835. Significant date! At that time the 
word nationahty was omnipresent, in the press, in 
Hterature, in parhamentary eloquence. It also took 
its place in history. Greece, championed by the pens 
of philosophers and poets, and backed by the military 
forces of France and England, had just won her inde- 
pendence. Belgium and Holland had separated from 
each other in order to live their own lives. In 1831 
Russian Poland had risen in revolt, without, however, 
finding a defender in Europe, in spite of the appeals of 
Casimir Delavigne, Armand Carrel and Louis Blanc. 
Everywhere in the Balkans the people were in turmoil. 
Public sentiment was inspired by the general aspira- 
tion of the peoples to enter history by the side or in 
place of the dynasties which had for centuries at once 
exploited and oppressed them; and with the growth 
and amplification of the ideas, the words became more 
precise and their meaning altered. Nationality, in the 
abstract sense, is the characteristic of that which is 
national. But it is also, especially in the concrete 

1 Part I of "The Principle of Nationality" was printed as No. log of Inter- 
national Conciliation. 

[3] 



72 

sense, the totality of those ethnical elements which 
aspire to the dignity, the risks and the thrilling exper- 
iences of national life. Nationality is the nation in 
power, the nation attempting to realize itself and to 
play a part in history. It is made of similar but dis- 
severed elements which would unite to form a common 
body and give it the functions necessary to a common 
life, in a word, to achieve unity and political sov- 
ereignty. 

Unquestionably, the distinction between these ideas 
is frequently vague; 'nation' and 'nationality' may 
be used interchangeably to designate the same ethnic 
group. We may give the name of nation not only to 
existing states, where political unity visibly corre- 
sponds with a unity of homogeneous ethnical char- 
acteristics, but also to those states which have been 
deprived by the accident of history of this unity within 
such comparatively recent times that its memory still 
remains as an ideal for restoration. Poland, dismem- 
bered for a hundred and forty years, has remained a 
nation to exiled Poles, and its writers and journalists 
remain faithful to the unfortunate people. The Ger- 
man world, in spite of every feudal division, was con- 
scious even under the yoke of the Napoleonic armies 
that it was the ' German nation ' to which Fichte had 
addressed his fiery speeches. On the other hand, we 
should commonly speak of Greek, Bulgarian, Jewish 
or Lithuanian 'nationality', and the almost classical 
expression, the 'principle of nationalities' usually 
refers to the principle by which individuals who recog- 
nize sufficiently strong similarities among themselves 
aspire legitimately to become an independent political 
community on a common territory. 

What are these similarities? They are, of course, 

[4] 



73 

those which characterize the nation, since, as we have 
frequently insisted, the nation is the complete form 
— or, as we should say in philosophy, the idea or final 
cause — which the nationality desires to realize. The 
characteristics of nationality are, therefore, practically 
the same as those which are implied in the idea of a 
nation. 

It would seem a daring venture to undertake to 
define a ' nation ' when one remembers the remarkable 
conference of March eleventh, 1882, when Renan 
summarized all that modern consciousness has con- 
densed in that idea. The subtle arguments of Renan 
resulted, after a series of eliminations, in minimizing 
the importance of the material and material content 
of the national idea and a magnificent exaltation of its 
moral aspects. 

THE COUNTRY 

The spiritual aspect of the modern nation appeared 
to Renan so essential that he needed but a few words in 
which to dismiss the question of geographical uni^. 
On this point in particular many writers are reluctant 
to agree with him. Never has the conception of 
'natural boundaries' been more widely accepted than 
today. Let us take care to avoid unwarranted nega- 
tions as well as extravagant assertions. It goes without 
saying that an ocean, or a steep range of mountains 
divides communities, just as a fertile plain, furrowed 
with fordable and navigable waters, conduces to com- 
pact and permanent settlement. Especially during 
the period of the great migrations, when mankind had 
to reckon with the natural difficulties presented by a 
virgin soil, did nature mark out in advance the paths 

[5] 



74 

destined to become the highways of human caravans ; 
men followed the„ water courses, marched around 
marshes and forests, and sought out the lower moun- 
tain passes. History is not to be separated from geog- 
raphy. But when we endeavor to pass beyond these 
generalizations what uncertainties and contradictions 
we find! For example, the frontiers of the languages 
are far from following the mountain crests. French is 
still spoken at Sainte-Marie-aux-Mines on the eastern 
slope of the Vosges and across the Alps in the valleys 
of Vaud and Piedmont. Basque idioms and dialects 
are spoken on both sides of the Pyrenees. Moreover, 
in Switzerland, Lorraine and Belgium, the respective 
limits of French, German and Flemish are not marked 
by any natural boundary but show the most surprising 
sinuosities. In the vast plains extending from the 
Baltic Sea to the Ural Mountains, from the Caucasus 
to the Carpathians, the different Slavic nationalities, 
Russians, Ruthenians, Don Cossacks, Lithuanians and 
Poles are distributed without regard to the river 
basins. Rivers are said both to unite and to separate. 
The Germans claim that the Rhine is a river within 
the interior of the German realm; but M. Julian, a 
Frenchman, declares it to be a natural frontier since 
it is rapid, impetuous and hard to cross, as might in- 
deed be said of our own Rhone. In fact, mountains and 
water courses have never permanently arrested racial 
movements. The Aryans were compelled to cross the 
Himalayas and the Indus to settle India. In Europe 
the Alps have not arrested the Gauls, the Teutons or 
the Ostrogoths; nor the Rhine the Germans, Huns 
and Vandals; nor the Carpathians and the Danube the 
Slavs; nor the sea and the Pyrenees the Arabs. It is 
evident that these natural barriers oppose a formidable 

[6] 



75 

obstacle only to the peoples Incapable of surmounting 
them by their skill, but they lose almost all of their 
significance the day when man undertakes to build a 
bridge, cut a tunnel, or construct a steamboat or 
even a raft. The Mediterranean, which served to 
isolate barbarians, became a bond of union and a 
sphere of common exploitation for seafaring peoples, 
the Phoenicians, Greeks and Romans. Even today 
it is brilliantly demonstrated by the enthusiasm that 
inspires all the British colonies to share in the defense 
of civilization how firm is the bond which unites with 
England the scattered members of an empire upon 
which the sun never sets. 

Does it not seem, after all, that the 'natural boun- 
dary' theorists by an unconscious sophism mistake 
for a cause what is but an effect? In interpreting 
experience we naturally tend to explain what is 
changeable by what is immutable, what is variable by 
essential and permanent characteristics. Nothing is 
more misleading than to account for the life of a people 
by the form of their country in our atlases of historical 
geography. The natural features of the great historic 
countries, Spain, Great Britain, France, are so familiar 
to us, they have so completely become for us the image 
of these nations, that there would seem to be a neces- 
sary connection between their topography and their 
history; and surely no one would deny that there is 
much truth In this view. But it should be remembered 
that the geography of a nation is itself the product of 
its history ; we need only look at an historical atlas to 
be assured of this. France has not always reached to 
the Alps and the Pyrenees, and her northeastern 
frontier has been subject to constant alteration. Of 
what existing boundary may we say that it is fixed by 

[71 



76 

the nature of things? If any country might be thought 
predestined 'by nature' to attain national unity, it is 
certainly Italy, isolated from other nations by the sea 
and by the highest mountains in Europe. Neverthe- 
less, she remained for centuries after the fall of the 
Roman Empire but a 'geographical expression', and 
even today she must fight hard to conquer the frontiers 
which nature seemed to have assigned to her. How 
strange a 'nature' that the will and the hand of man 
must correct or realize its purposes! At bottom, the 
theory of natural boundaries is but a fiction which 
man has made to orient his activities; it is a sphere 
for the demarcation of his ambitions and his hopes; 
it is far less a natural cause of which he experiences the 
effect, than an aim that he wills to realize and for 
which he postulates in advance a kind of concrete 
reality. Doubtless it is true enough that in one sense 
the country makes the people, modifies their character 
and imposes on them certain habits; but, on the other 
hand, we may also say that the people fashion their 
country by their dreams and aspirations. 

COMMON INTERESTS 

I shall not emphasize the importance of a commun- 
ity of interests more strongly than Renan has done. 
A customs union, a Zollverein, he declares cannot 
constitute a country. We may say even more than 
this; immediate interest may favor the dissolution as 
well as the consolidation of a nationality. When all is 
said, if the yoke imposed upon a vanquished nation 
is not absolutely intolerable, is it to its immediate 
interest to live in a condition of open revolt or of 
silent hostility? Is it not rather to accept the law, the 

[8] 



77 

religion, the language and the institutions of the victor 
and to merge one's identity with his? Vanquished 
Gaul certainly found it advantageous to permit 
assimilation by Rome. In very recent days was not 
the participation of Alsace in the material prosperity 
of Germany the most potent factor in turning the 
ancient uncompromising protest against annexation 
into a mere demand for autonomy within the frame- 
work of the German Empire? Frequently, moreover, 
the invader finds it to his interest to let himself be 
assimilated, both economically and spiritually, by 
the possessors of the soil. On the other hand, the his- 
tory of nations is full of the self-sacrifice of the more 
valiant among them in the defense of their liberties. 
How explain by motives of self-interest the Polish 
insurrection of 1863, a movement of chivalrous folly 
condemned from the outset to a cruel defeat? In 
short, common interests may unite for a time even 
hostile forces, just as they may bring into opposition 
persons or groups otherwise sympathetic. But the 
national bond is of a different sort than a convenient 
compromise; a nation is not a syndicate of desires. 

RACE 

The most important part of Renan's analysis, in my 
opinion, is his masterly criticism of the theories which 
would determine nationality by race. The progress of 
ethnography and of anthropology in the last thirty 
years has not in the least weakened Renan's position. 
Can anyone use the term race in its strictest sense as 
implying a number of individuals of the same species 
linked together by a common ancestry? It is obvious 
that to do so we should have to seek out the very 

[9] 



78 

origins of the human race which are lost in the uncer- 
tain distances of prehistoric times; rather a question 
of metaphysics than of physiology or of human geog- 
raphy. We believe no longer in the mythical division 
of the human family among the sons of Noah, and yet 
we do not know whether the forest of humanity has 
sprung from a single root or from a number of diverse 
stocks. Anthropology knows no instance of a pure 
race, nor a single example of any race unable to blend 
itself with another. We may, it is true, by comparing 
certain outstanding human characteristics, such as 
stature, facial angle, cephalic index, and so forth, 
determine the predominance of certain types in a 
given region and explain the variations from this by 
migrations or by the resurgence of very ancient homo- 
geneous races; but, apart from the fact that no one 
knows whether these races are themselves pure or 
composite, the indications of anthropology are con- 
firmed neither by linguistics nor history. Nowhere 
can the geographical distribution of languages be 
traced back to the division of populations into tall, 
blond dolichocephalic and dark, short brachycephalic 
types. 

If, on the other hand, we mean by race the type to 
which a people in a given country have conformed, we 
are surely dealing with an incontestable reality. There 
undoubtedly is an Anglo-Saxon, a French, a German, a 
Scandinavian, a Berber and a Yankee type. But we 
readily perceive that in a race so considered, the factor 
which is considered of first importance, physiological 
inheritance, plays an uncertain but always secondary 
part, and that the truly determining factors are cli- 
mate, costume, or habits of life. It will be found, for 
example, that peoples uiuioubtedly akin may become 



79 

decidedly different from each other — as with the Alsa- 
tians and the Badenese — ^whereas populations that 
grow by immigration soon impose upon the newcomers 
a new type; for instance, the Yankee type which 
asserts itself in so curious a fashion after two or three 
generations among immigrants of every descent who 
have come to the United States, Anglo-Saxons, Ger- 
mans, Jews, Italians, and all others. From this it 
follows that race, wherever it constitutes an effective 
social reality, is fully as much a product of as a factor 
in the national life. A nation is not determined by its 
heredity ; it is a living organism which is both adapted 
to its environment and adapts that to itself. Or better 
said — for this mutual adaptation might be a wholly 
material process — a nation bears the imprint of its 
spiritual vitality on its brow and in its sinews. It 
may degenerate from alcohol, debauchery, overstrain, 
or deliberate surrender; or it may enhance, rebuild 
and beautify its life by good hygiene, athletics, school- 
ing, military training, games, the arts, and the inten- 
sive development of spiritual life. 

No doubt one is tempted to draw a sharp distinction 
among three or four main types of the human race, 
white men and black, yellow and red men. In the 
United States, for example, however rapid and easy 
the assimilation of Aryan elements, there is a barrier 
between these peoples, on the one hand, and the 
'colored people' on the other, whether these are the 
descendants of negro slaves, the remnant of the * red- 
skins ', or the yellow peoples, whose immigration to 
the United States has been made extremely difficult 
by federal law. Yet even in the United States the 
intermarriage of white men and Indians has undoubt- 
edly occurred on a considerable scale and has con- 

Iii] 



8o 

tributed to the making of the \ ankee type ; elsewhere, 
in Central America and in the Antilles the in- 
termarriage of white men with black has pro- 
ceeded apace. Finally, the rapid evolution of 
modern Japan and even of China should suffice to 
show how vain it is to attempt to connect in some 
vague fashion a given type of civilization with 
certain physiological characteristics. These great 
racial differences may at any time come to be 
of practical importance, and the 'Yellow Peril' may 
unquestionably be more than an empty phrase. But 
it is safe to say that the scientific basis for this theory is 
of the most uncertain character. And this racial 
factor becomes still less reliable when we try to con- 
trast the political groupings of modern Europe. It is 
not race, it is history that has created the modern 
nations, and in them mingle victors and vanquished, 
invaders and natives, and the strongest of them are 
just those to whom invasion and war have given the 
greatest variety of descent. "France," says Renan, 
"is Celtic, Iberian and Germanic. Germany is Ger- 
manic, Celtic and Slavic. Italy is the country where 
ethnology is most confused. Gauls, Etruscans, Pelas- 
gians, Greeks, not to speak of other elements, inter- 
mingle in an indescribable complexity. The British 
Isles, considered as a whole, show a mixture of Ger- 
manic and Celtic blood whose proportions are pecu- 
liarly difficult to determine." 

It is, therefore, high time that we should cease to 
complicate historical questions, and especially modern 
politics, with this human paleontology which rests only 
on confused, unprovable, changing hypotheses. Do 
those French writers who belatedly cling to this theory 
of races in order to build upon it their 'integral 

[12] 



8i 

nationalism ', or simply to reclaim such cities as Treves 
and Mayence, realize that they are simply donning 
the mantles of the scientists across the Rhine? In fact, 
the race theory is, at the present time, the essential 
argument of Pan-German propaganda. All countries 
where the names of places or of persons, the color of 
the eyes, or the shape of the head denote an infiltration 
of Teutonic elements, are declared to be the domain 
of the German race. The Netherlands, the Flemish 
districts of Belgium and France, Alsace-Lorraine, 
Burgundy, Franche Comt6, the Scandinavian nations, 
Finland, the Baltic provinces of Russia, Austria, in 
short, all central Europe from the North Cape to the 
Adriatic has been proclaimed the chosen land which 
is destined to become subject to the German Empire. 
And since race i&not easy to determine, and since the 
people themselves forget their true descent, the sci- 
entists must undertake the task of apprising them of 
their correct allegiance according to their origin. 
Anthropologists dig the ground, collect flints, and 
measure skulls; philologists determine etymological 
relationships; students of folk-lore trace popular 
legends; historians resurrect old documents; and the 
whole learned world, still covered with dust from their 
researches, skilfully show the peoples that they are 
not what they thought themselves to be. "We other 
Germans," wrote Treitschke, "know better than the 
Alsatians wherein lies their true welfare. . . . We 
will bring them to their true selves in spite of them." ^ 
These trenchant affirmations of 'competent authori- 
ties' might be harmless enough, were they not backed 
up by imperialist politicians, armed with the verdicts 
of scholarship as if with title deeds, who command the 

» Was Fordern Wir von Frankreich? 

[13] 



82 

peoples to throw themselves, willing or unwilling, into 
the embrace of the reconstituted race. In just this 
fashion did the German universities prepare the way 
for the achievements of Bismarck and represent to 
their * long lost brothers ' of Alsace and Lorraine their 
annexation by the Empire as a return to the ' German 
family'. Today we see the same stratagem used with 
the Flemish Belgians. 

Who does not feel the scandal and shamelessness of 
such sophistries? In the name of what Renan has 
termed the 'poor little conjectural sciences', in the 
name of history, that complaisant servant of any 
theory, in the name of linguistics and of anthropology, 
yet more uncertain and still more complaisant, at- 
tempts are made to decide the fate of peoples against 
their will. A few degrees more or less of the cephalic 
index are expected to determine a frontier. Was it 
not Frederick the Great who, understanding his 
people, remarked on the eve of the partition of Poland : 
"Whatever I may do, I shall always find some pedant 
to justify me"? 

LANGUAGE 

Should we say of language what we have but now 
said of race? To the consideration of this question 
Renan was able to bring his special competence as a 
philologist and historian. He knew that languages 
alter and die out more readily than races. Gaul and 
Spain quickly abandoned their native idioms for Latin ; 
all northern Africa speaks the Arabic brought in by the 
soldierapostlesof the Koran ; The Slavic Prussians speak 
nothing but German; the Irish and the Welsh have 
adopted the English language; there are many Bretons 

[14] 



83 

and Flemings in France wlio understand no language 
but the French. On the other hand, great communi- 
ties may speak the same language without being united 
by any political bond. The people of the United States 
still speak the same language as the British from whom 
they have been separated for a century and a half; 
Latin America has kept the languages of Spain and 
Portugal although it has thrown off their political 
tutelage. All that is clear. And yet it would seem 
that Renan did not fully appreciate the importance 
of the factor of language. In the first place, is it so 
certain that the unity of a nation suffers nothing from 
diversity of speech? Renan cites the classic example 
of Switzerland where four languages are spoken, and 
to this we might add the case of Belgium where the 
French of the Walloon provinces and the Flemish of 
the west co-exist without interfering with each other. 
But recent events enable us to question if these exam- 
ples are conclusive. In the great duel which brings 
into opposition two types of civilization, French and 
German, it should be recognized that Swiss sympa- 
thies at once divided along the frontier of language. 
True, Switzerland has scrupulously kept herself out of 
the struggle ; she has observed neutrality with all due 
loyalty and displayed an equal generosity towards the 
wounded and the interned civilians whom France and 
Germany have exchanged through her as intermediary. 
But when we read the Swiss journals we realize what 
disturbance our neighbors have experienced. Though 
unanimously determined to maintain their indepen- 
dence, they have realized, not without surprise and 
anxiety, that they were by no means agreed among 
themselves as to the causes of the war, the initial 
responsibility, and the violations of human rights 

[15] 



84 

which have marked its course. A ' German Swiss ' and 
a 'French Swiss' would have met, not of course in a 
hostile fashion, but surprised and uneasy that they 
were no longer in agreement. This is because litera- 
ture, the newspapers, teaching and propaganda by 
pamphlet have prejudiced on one side or the other the 
two linguistic sections. There was thus a daily infil- 
tration of sentiments, ideas, assertions, which only 
a few reflective persons, capable of reading and think- 
ing in both languages might resist, but certainly not 
the great mass of readers. The same thing may be 
seen in a lesser degree in Belgium. Everyone knows 
how acute the dualism of language had become there, 
and the resulting conflict between the two parties, 
each of which has its own language, its own art and its 
own drama. No one, to be sure, would dream of 
questioning the loyalty of either Flemings or Walloons. 
The invasion, so far from finding Belgium divided 
against itself, instantly stopped the national quarrels. 
It remains none the less true, however, that the Wal- 
loon part of Belgium has shown itself more open to the 
influence of the French spirit, whereas the Germans, 
even before the war, considered the Flemish movement 
as an outpost of Pan-Germanism. 

For speech is not, like race, a matter which must be 
determined by scientific research; in the absence of 
other special distinctions, it is the chief concrete sign 
by which men recognize their solidarity as against the 
foreigner. It is true enough, as Renan observed in 
another part of his discussion, that there is much self- 
deception in this judgment, since languages are always 
changeable and are sometimes forgotten in the course 
of two or three generations. But what difference does 
it make whether the belief is an illusion or not, if it 

[16] 



85 

is held wholly and sincerely? What matters it that 
the Prussians spoke Slavic some centuries ago if they 
speak only German today and therefore feel them- 
selves at one with all who speak, think, write, sing, 
love or hate in German? 

So essential, moreover, is unity of language to a na- 
tion, that a war of languages is today, as in the recent 
past, the most characteristic and constant form of 
national struggle. It is surely remarkable that this 
war should persist with such vehemence even where 
religious persecution has long ago ceased. The relig- 
ious faith of the Poles, Finns, Danes of Schleswig, and 
people of Alsace-Lorraine has always been respected. 
The principle according to which subjects follow the 
religion of the ruler — cuius regio, eius religio — a prin- 
ciple still recognized in the Treaty of Westphalia 
(1648), has practically fallen into disuse in central 
and western Europe. On the other hand, there is not 
a single form of hardship which these unhappy people 
have not suffered for the use of their national language ; 
the obligatory, sometimes the exclusive, use of the 
ofificial language in street signs, railway stations, public 
buildings, even cemeteries, on the sign-boards of shops, 
in the courts, in the church and, above all, in the 
schools. The Polish children of Prussian Poland have 
been free to remain Catholics, provided they would 
learn their catechism in German, but it should not be 
forgotten that children, even little girls, were whipped 
till they bled for asserting their right to pray in the 
language of their parents. Nowhere, however, has the 
war of language assumed such an acute form as in the 
Balkans. The Turks, to be sure, whose administration 
has always been a strange blend of harshness and tol- 
erance, have never violently interfered with the free 

[17] 



86 

usage of their language by their subject peoples, and 
this is undoubtedly the principal explanation of the 
strong survival of the Serb, Bulgar, Rumanian, Greek 
and Armenian nationalities. But their subjects have 
well understood how to use this freedom at once 
against the oppressor and against their companions in 
servitude.*- The school and the church — the church 
where they preach, sing and pray in their native 
tongue — have been, short of insurrection, the essential 
means of their liberation. 

But this propaganda has not only been of service 
to the cause of resistance to Turkish tyranny, it has 
also been a first-class weapon in the mutual rivalries of 
the Balkan nationalities. In the disputed territories, 
that is, in the inextricable entanglement of diverse 
nationalities in Macedonia and in Epirus where the 
demographic situation is equally obscure, Bulgars, 
Greeks and Serbs have multiplied schools and churches, 
and this intensive propaganda has reached such a point 
as to aggravate the antagonism of nationalities for 
successive generations. It has happened that children, 
once passed through school, could no longer speak 
the language of their parents and grandparents. When 
the commission selected in 1913 by the Conference of 
London undertook to determine the southern boun- 
dary of the new nation of Albania, it was rather sur- 
prised to discover that in certain localities the children 
and young men spoke Greek while the old men and 
the women employed a Serb or Albanian dialect. In 
the United States, also, it is the English-speaking 
school which has brought about, in spite of the abso- 
lute liberty accorded to all religious beliefs, such a 
surprisingly rapid Americanization of the hundreds of 
thousands of immigrants that annually swell the 

[18J 



87 

population of the republic. It has been observed that, 
as a general rule, the third generation has completely 
forgotten the language still understood and used in 
domestic conversation by the second. 

These facts point to one conclusion: namely, if 
nations can only with difficulty dispense with linguistic 
unity, for nationalities which aspire to become nations 
it is a still more vital condition of existence and prog- 
ress. Exceptional circumstances of geography and 
history have enabled the Swiss nation, a blend of 
various nationalities, to establish itself in spite of the 
diversity of tongues. For these cantons, which had 
long been independent in their Alpine retreats, had 
early reached a sufficiently high level of political con- 
sciousness to enable them to overcome the dissimilari- 
ties due to difference of language. The Swiss Confed- 
eration is an admirable example of voluntary associa- 
tion established among free communities without need- 
ing the unifying action of a dynasty as the nucleus of 
its growth. In Belgium a common resistance to the 
tyranny of a common master, Spain or Austria, 
unquestionably welded the national soul to unity in 
spite of differences of speech. Such diversity in unity 
is only possible in a limited territory. But how should 
such a vast empire as Austria-Hungary, divided into a 
dozen nationalities speaking as many different idioms, 
ever be established as a nation? 

Let me add, finally, that in the small bilingual or 
trilingual countries, such as Belgium, Finland, Switzer- 
land, Alsace-Lorraine, there is an educated class which 
speaks the two or three national languages almost 
equally well, and that this class at once represents and 
controls the common life of the nation. But in such 
countries as Austria-Hungary where, over a vast area, 

[19] 



88 

too many rival languages co-exist, this function of a 
polyglot elite becomes impossible. Among so many 
disparate elements there is no common bond but the 
person of the sovereign and a bureaucracy which 
secures the external agreement of the many national 
entities, at once contiguous and unable to influence 
each other. 

RELIGION 

Of religion we may say almost what we have said 
of language. A nation once established can dispense 
with religious unity, whenever the consciousness of 
national solidarity is strong enough to allow the indi- 
vidual conscience to free itself from any creed, or to 
worship in private the God within, or to adore the 
'Father of all mankind'. With Stoicism and Chris- 
tianity, God has been internationalized. No doubt, 
the words of men are often deliberately polytheistic. 
The Kaiser invokes the 'Old German God', and the 
French Catholic the God of Clovis, of Saint Louis and 
of Joan of Arc. But, fundamentally, it is the same 
Deity, successor of the biblical Jehovah and the 
Hellenic Zeus, to whom Europeans pray, about whom 
they dispute, to whom they appeal for victory; the 
God inscribed upon their coins, their helmets, their 
sword-belts, and in their national hymns : Dieu prolhge 
la France — Gott mil Uns — God Save the King — Boje 
Tsara Krani; and it is but too true that this worship 
of a common master of their destinies has in no way 
diminished the terrible antagonism of modern nations. 
This world war marks the failure of Christian inter- 
nationalism as well as of the internationalism of the 
workers. The modern idea of the nation has developed 

[20] 



89 

on quite a different plane from that of the religious 
consciousness. This has always tended to assume a 
subjective and individual form, whereas the nation 
cannot exist without a body of common principles and 
without a legal frame work comprising and including 
the individual. Modern States have left religious 
practices entirely to the individual conscience; schism 
and heresy are no longer public concerns, and diverse 
creeds may without harm co-exist in the same nation. 
But it is not so with nationalities, and here we must 
once more part company with Renan. For a people 
still engaged in winning their political independence or 
to accomplish their national unity, every rallying point 
is precious. In the absence of a political framework, 
the national churches offer their hierarchy, their 
administrative organization, as a rough outline of the 
political organization of the future. Dioceses and 
parishes furnish the plan for the provinces and com- 
munes of the morrow. Where constitutional repre- 
sentation is lacking, the priests, the bishops, the pas- 
tors, the synods are the only means of maintaining 
before the sovereign power the complaints and the 
demands of the nationalities. Wherever the spoken 
and the written word are restricted, the sermon is still 
the freest means of voicing popular aspirations. In 
those parts of Europe where the fate of nationalities 
is now debated with the greatest eagerness, relig- 
ious activities have played a part which it would be 
idle to deny. Bulgarian and Serbian "Popes", Greek 
"Pappas" in Macedonia and in Epirus, Catholic 
missionaries from Austria and Italy in Albania are, 
as much or more than the school teachers, true nat- 
ionalist agitators. The gaining of a Hexarchate, that 
is to say, the right to have a religious head other than 

[21] 



90 

the Patriarch of Constantinople, was for the Bulgar- 
ians the first step in their emancipation. _ We may also 
explain in this way the fact that those modern States 
which have to reckon with nationalist movements 
interfere in religious affairs in a high-handed fashion 
and make use of the Church as an instrument of gov- 
ernment. If the Austrian Emperor is the last Catholic 
sovereign to hold intimate relations with the Vatican 
and even intervene in papal elections, it is because he 
has need to appear, after the Pope, as a second head of 
the Church to the numerous Catholic nationalities 
of the Empire, Italians of the Trentino, Germans of 
Austria, Czechs of Bohemia, Magyars of Hungary, 
Croatians and Slavonians, not to mention Albania 
where the government of Vienna maintains a whole 
army of missionaries. The Tsar is, for all the Slavs, 
head and champion of the Orthodox Church; the 
Russian Sacred Synod has always been a means of 
Russification in Finland, Poland, the Ukraine, and 
it is well known that during the temporary occupation 
of Galicia a cloud of priests swarmed over the country 
which had been promised liberty and that the Catholic 
bishop of the Ukraine was sent to Siberia where he still 
awaits his liberation. 

SPIRITUAL UNITY 

What, in short, is a nation? Let me repeat here 
the admirable answer of Renan: "A nation is a vast 
solidarity, established by the realization of the sacri- 
fices which have been made and of those which may 
still be expected. It implies a past; in the present, 
however, it rests upon a tangible fact: consent, the 
clearly expressed desire to continue a common life. 

[22] 



91 

The existence of a nation is a daily plebiscite, as the 
existence of an individual is a perpetual affirmation of 
existence." And, summarizing his analysis yet more 
concisely, Renan concludes: "A nation is a soul, a 
spiritual principle.' Nearei our own day, another 
philosopher, Emile Boutroux, wrote recently: "The 
will of a certain number of persons to live together in 
a country where they were born and in which their 
personality received its impress, to cultivate together 
common memories and to pursue common aims, is at 
once the essence and the test of nationality. Nation- 
ality is a part of the life of the human soul, and is itself 
a living thing.''^ These definitions are very beautiful; 
they are true, without doubt; they are also rich in 
practical consequences, inasmuch as they are based 
upon an incontestable reality, the right of nations to 
live their own lives, but are they not a little vague 
because incomplete? Does not that soul which is 
the nation need to have a body as well to come into 
relation with real life? 

THE nation: soul and body 

This body established nations find in the political 
institutions which, by bestowing sovereignty on them, 
make them moral entities of equal rank with all other 
sovereign nations, great or small. A French philoso- 
pher, Edmond Goblot, has said: "la Patrie, c'est la 
loi" (the fatherland is the law). The ideal nation 
appears to us as the close synthesis of the social soul, 
or collective will, with a system of political institu- 
tions. The collective will finds in the legal organism 
at once its expression and its support; but the legal 

'Lo Nation Comme Personne Morale, Revue of April is, p. 232. 
[23] 



92 

organism, in turn, draws its energy and the conscious- 
ness of its growth from the collective will, and the life 
of the nation consists of the interaction of this soul 
which directs and of this body which achieves. 

But can we speak of national life where there is 
lacking not only the independent exercise of the indis- 
pensable functions of social existence but community 
of religion and above all of language? Unquestion- 
ably, nationalities, like nations, possess a soul in so 
far as they are conscious of common aspirations which 
direct them to common aims; but how uncertain is 
this community of desires if those who experience 
them have no concrete bond of union which enables 
them to discover and to recognize each other f The 
collective consciousness needs the support of a con- 
tinuity of language which perpetuates historic memo- 
ries, transmits tradition from generation to generation, 
legends, ancestral deeds, poems and national songs. 
Nor can there be any doubt, in my opinion, that one 
of the chief factors in the nationalist movement, which 
permeated the whole nineteenth century and is shak- 
ing Europe so terribly today, has been simply the 
diffusion of elementary education, of books and news- 
papers. 

In a word, nationalities are populations that aspire 
to become nations. Like nations they are complex 
collectivities, drawing their sentiment of unity from 
a great number of sources, among which the moral 
factors, traditions, religion and a common speech are 
the most essential. But in order to become nations in 
the full sense of the term they must gain that political 
independence through which means alone a complete 
social life can manifest itself. 

It is to this completeness that all the nationalities 
[24 1 



93 

aspire which have preserved intact the sentiment of 
their unity in spite of their subjection. Here we meet 
with a final and most striking characteristic. A nation 
may be content to defend her acquired position ; it can 
without Hmiting itself to its present bounds — a limita- 
tion that might be synonymous with death — at least 
be content to develop its life within certain territorial 
limits and under a political system that may be con- 
sidered as final. A nationality, on the other hand, 
which wants to live, must direct its efforts wholly 
towards the future ; it is rather a hope than a memory. 
The imagination of a people who aspire to national 
existence is therefore singularly richer than their 
memory. They have, as Renan ingeniously observes, 
a wonderful and doubtless beneficent faculty of for- 
getting. Examinations that have frequently been 
made in France, in Germany and elsewhere, prove to 
what degree of poverty and absurdity the memory of 
national history often is reduced in the brains of the 
majority of conscripts who have been educated in the 
public schools. What is remembered is rather sym- 
bols than facts, or perhaps facts and names that have 
become symbols. Joan of Arc, the capture of the 
Bastile for the French ; the battles of Teutoberg, Jena 
and Sedan for the Germans; the battle on the Plains 
of Merles for the Serbians; Andreas Hofer in Tyrol; 
Wilhelm Tell and Winkelried in Switzerland. . 
But these symbols suffice because they preserve the 
past and are as guarantees for the future, appeals 
to action, reasons for hope. In reality, a national- 
ity has but a very confused idea of the elements 
which compose it, these are hardly known even to the 
educated classes; on the other hand, it knows very 
well what it wants to become, and, above all, when 

[25] 



94 

oppressed, what it does not want to remain any longer. 
Coercion from without results in uniting incongruous 
elements until at last the day comes when the nation- 
ality, however complex in its origin, united in aspira- 
tions, considers itself ready to occupy a place among 
the nations, and rises up against its oppressors to claim 
a place in the Sun of Liberty. 



[26] 



International Conciliation 

Published monthly by the 
American Association for International Conciliation. 
Entered as second class matter at New York, N. Y., 
Postoffice, February 23, 1909, under act of July 16, 1894. 



THE BASES OF AN ENDURING 
PEACE 



PRO 

fmPATRIA^^ 
PER 

iCONCORDIAny 



BY 



FRANKLIN H. GIDDINGS 

APRIL, 1917 
No. 113 



AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR INTERNATIONAL CONCILIATION 

SUB- STATION 84 (407 WEST II7TH STREET) 
NEW YORK CITY 



97 



THE BASES OF AN ENDURING PEACE 

BY 

Franklin H. Giddings 

Note, The American Association for International Concilia- 
tion has been requested to place before its readers different 
points of view with regard to the basis upon which international 
peace can be established at the close of the present war, and in 
accordance with this request, the following paper is included in its 
series of publications. Next month an article favoring a nego- 
tiated peace will be printed. 

The first part of Professor Giddings's article was published by 
the Association in August, 1916, as the introduction to a volume 
of material collected by Randolph S. Bourne and entitled 
"Towards An Enduring Peace." 

When the storm has gone by and the skies after 
clearing have softened, we may discover that a cor- 
rected perspective is the result of the war that we are 
most conscious of. Familiar presumptions will appear 
foreshortened, and new distances of fact and possi- 
bility will lie before us. 

Before the fateful midsummer of 19 14 the most 
thoughtful part of mankind confidently held a lot of 
agreeable presumptions which undoubtedly influenced 
individual and collective conduct. The more intan- 
gible of them were grouped under such name symbols 
as "idealism," "humanitarian impulse," "human 
brotherhood," "Christian civilization." The worka- 
day ones were pigeonholed under the rubric: "en- 
lightened economic interest." Between the practical 
and the aspirational were distributed all the excellent 

[5] 



98 

Aristotelian middle course presumptions of the "rule 
of reason" order. 

And why not? The nineteenth century had closed 
in a blaze of scientific glory. By patient inductive 
research the human mind had found out nature's way 
on earth and in the heavens, and with daring inven- 
tion had turned knowledge to immediate practical 
account. The struggle for existence had become a 
mighty enterprise of progress. Steam and electricity 
had brought the utmost parts of the world together. 
Upon substantial material foundations the twentieth 
century would build a world republic, wherein justice 
should apportion abundance. 

Upon presumption we reared the tower of expec- 
tation. 

Yet on the horizon we might have seen — some of 
us did see — a thickening haze and warning thunder- 
heads. Not much was said about them, but to some 
it seemed that the world behaved as if it felt the ten- 
sion of a rising storm. With nervous eagerness the 
nations pushed their way into the domains of the 
backward peoples. They sought concessions, oppor- 
tunities for investment, command of resources, exclu- 
sive trade, spheres of influence. Private negotiations 
were backed by diplomacy, and year after year di- 
plomacy was backed by an ever more impressive show 
of naval and military power. 

But we did not believe that the Great War im- 
pended. There would still be restricted wars here and 
there, of course, but more and more they could be 
prevented. The human mind that had mastered 
nature's way could master and control the ways of 
man. Economic interest would bring its resistless 
strength to bear against the mad makers of the wastes 

[6] 



99 

of war. A sensitive conscience would revolt against 
the cruelties of war. Reason, which had invented 
rules and agencies to keep the peace within the state, 
would devise tribunals and procedures to substitute 
a rational adjustment of differences for the arbitra- 
ment of war between states. 

The world has recovered from disaster before now, 
it will recover again. Presumptions that disappointed 
have been re-examined and brought into truer draw- 
ing. Expectation has been more broadly built, it will 
be more broadly built again. 

There is conscience in mankind, and the war has 
sublimely revealed it, as it has revealed also un- 
dreamed of survivals of faithlessness and cruelty. 
The presumption of rational control in human affairs 
has been foreshortened, but not painted out. In the 
background stand forth as grim realities, forces of 
fear, distrust, envy, ignorance, and hate that we had 
thought were ghosts. Conscience is as strong and as 
sensitive as we believed it to be; reason is as effective 
as we presumed; but the forces arrayed against them 
we now see are mightier than we knew. So now we 
ask. By what power shall conscience and reason be re- 
inforced, and the surviving forces of barbarism be 
driven back? 

There is but one answer left, all others have been 
shot to pieces. Conscience and reason are effective 
when they organize material energies, not when they 
dissipate themselves in dreams. Conscience and rea- 
son must assemble, co-ordinate, and bring to bear the 
economic resources and the physical energies of the 
civilized world to narrow the area and to diminish the 
frequency of war. 

[7] 



lOO 



But how? General presumptions will not do this 
time. There must be a specific plan, concrete and 
practical; a specific preparedness, a specific method. 
And what is more, plan, preparedness, method must 
be drawn forth from the situation as the war makes 
and leaves it, not imposed upon it. There must be a 
composition of forces now in operation. 

There were academic plans aplenty for the creation 
of pacific internationalism before the war began. The 
bankers had invented theirs; the socialists, the con- 
ciliationists, and the international lawyers respectively 
haa invented theirs. The free-traders, first in the 
field, had not lost hope. 

It would be foolish to let ourselves think in discour- 
agement that all these efforts to organize "the inter- 
national mind" were idle. They were not ineffective. 
They did not organize the international mind ade- 
quately, much less did they reform its habits, but they 
quickened it; they organized it in part, they pulled 
it together enough to make it powerful for the work 
yet to be done. 

What we have to face, then, is not the extinction or 
abandonment of internationalism, but the fact that 
the ideal, the all-embracing and thoroughly rational 
internationalism lies far in the future, and that before 
it can be attained we must have that partial interna- 
tionalism which is practically the same thing as the 
widening of nationalism which is achieved when na- 
tions co-operate in leagues or combine in federations. 
An all-embracing league of nations to enforce peace, 
or for any other purpose, would be a "scrap of paper" 
understanding, but the forces that now hold the 
entente allies together in military co-operation against 
the coromon enemy of civilization are realities, and they 

[81 



lOI 

will be realities after the military war is over. There 
still will be tariffs, but the areas within whicn tariff 
barriers will no longer be maintained will be immensely 
widenec*. Beyond these areas will be, as now, various 
arrangements of reciprocity. In like manner, there 
will be a determination on the part of the co-operating 
nations to stand together for the enforcement of inter- 
national agreements and to discipline a law-breaking 
state that would needlessly resort to arms. The inter- 
nationalism of commerce, of travel, of communica- 
tion, of intellectual exchange and moral endeavor will 
continue to grow throughout the world, but in addi- 
tion there will be the more definite and more concrete 
internationalism of the nations that agree in making 
common cause for the attainment of specific ends. 

Within this relatively restricted internationalism 
there will be, there is now, a certain yet more definite 
aggregation of peoples, interests, and traditions upon 
which rests a great and peculiar moral responsibility. 
The English-speaking people of the world are together 
the largest body of human beings among whom a 
nearly complete intellectual and moral understanding 
is already achieved. They have reached high attain- 
ments in science and the arts, in education, in social 
order, in justice. They are highly organized, they 
cherish the traditions of their common history. To 
permit anything to endanger the moral solidarity of 
this nucleus of a perfected internationalism would be 
a crime unspeakable. 

These considerations fix the moral and expedient 
limits of military co-operation between the United 
States and other nations, and they indicate our re- 
sponsibilities. They indicate also the conditions upon 
which peace might, conceivably, long endure ; whereas 

[9] 



102 

a peace that did not fulfil these conditions could never 
be more than a breathing spell between wars. 

Peace at any price can never be an enduring peace. 
Peace at any price means the surrender of civilization, 
liberty, responsibility and self-respect. It means the 
exchange of a freeman's birthright for a villain's broth. 
In humiliation we have to inventory in our population 
individuals who would make such surrender and would 
so barter. Relatively, however, they are not numerous 
and never can be. They are among those extreme 
variates from human normality, which range from low 
intelligence and grotesque criminality, at one end of 
the frequency curve, to mad genius and martyrdom 
at the other end. All such variates, the good and the 
bad, the desirable and the undesirable, get crowded 
to the wall and exterminated when the struggle for 
existence is really severe, but when life is as soft as it 
has been in England and in the United States for fifty 
or more years past, they are able to live and to propa- 
gate. Fortunately, they have never controlled public 
policy'on a large scale, or for a long time, and they 
never will control. Least of all will peace-at-any-price 
men control. The normal man wants peace not as 
an end but as a means. He wants peace because he 
wants to feel that his wife and children are safe while 
he does his day's work. He wants peace if therewith 
he can enjoy liberty and a good conscience; otherwise 
he wants to fight, and fight he will, with a joy pure 
and undefiled. This is not mere argument. It is sta- 
tistical fact, which happens to fix and to define the 
possibilities of enduring peace. Variates from type 
are minorities, normal men are a majority. The nor- 
mal majority will not accept peace at any price. 

[10] 



I03 

They will fight. For the purposes of peace propa- 
ganda that hope to get somewhere the peace-at-any- 
price man is obstructive. 

There can be no enduring peace between absolu- 
tism and democracy. 

The American Revolution was not taken seriously 
in the throne rooms of continental Europe. A des- 
perately impoverished population of less than three 
million souls, dwelling three thousand miles from any- 
where, could safely be let alone to indulge itself for a 
time in the odd conceits of republicanism. The experi- 
ment would probably fail, and, if it did not, Europe 
could at any time curb its power for mischief. 

The French Revolution was another matter. That 
upheaval sent chills down royal spines. The guillotine 
in the Place de la Concorde was near enough to be seen 
and heard when one lay awake in the night. Also, it was 
known to be inexpensive, making no impossible de- 
mands upon the financial resources of a Third Estate, 
and was understood to be practical. It cut off two 
Bourbon heads of the first class and a plenty of others 
only less respectable ; and yet, and this was the worst 
of it, its operations were only an episode, as monarchi- 
cal statesmen from Westminster to Moscow quite well 
apprehended. The real revolution had been half ac- 
complished before sensational occurrences began; it 
proceeded quietly and was relentless. 

An entire people had awakened, and in coming to 
consciousness of itself had discovered that it was 
strong enough to throw off intolerable burdens. Then 
it found a way to put forth its strength. Ancient 
privileges of rank and class which had been looked upon 
as eternal verities of the constitution were not merely 

[II] 



I04 

abolished, they were annihilated, with characteristic 
French thoroughness, and the ground was cleared for 
a republican scheme of rights, liberties and laws. 

From the day that witnessed the confiscation of the 
properties of the nobles and of the church in 1789 
until the invasion of Belgium in 1914 there never was 
an hour when, so far as the human mind can see, any 
derailing of the train of events which was headed for 
the battle of the Marne would have been possible. 

The monarchs of Europe clearly saw that unless the 
revolution could be stopped in France it would extend 
throughout Europe and sweep all the dynasties away 
together. Therefore, they attacked France. That 
attack discovered Napoleon Bonaparte and put him 
in power. 

Bonaparte saw that his fortunes must be built upon 
the substantial results of the revolution and he there- 
fore, in settling the estate, saw to it that those results 
were embodied and clearly defined in the Code Napo- 
leon. In conquering Europe, however, and building 
an empire he imperilled the liberties for which, pre- 
sumably, he never had cared save in so far as he could 
use them for his own purposes. His overthrow was 
the destruction of a personal and dangerous military 
absolutism, but it was also the triumph of reactionary 
monarchism. Democracy could not have made its 
way if the first empire had survived, but from the 
moment that the Emperor was retired to St. Helena, 
the war was on again between popular politics and the 
dynasties, all superficial appearances to the contrary, 
notwithstanding. The Chartist disturbances in Eng- 
land, revolutionary activities in France in the thirties 
and forties, and the abortive revolution in Germany 
in 1848 were the futile outbreakings of democratic 

[12] 



105 

forces ever increasing in strength, but not then strong 
enough for so tremendous a task as they had at- 
tempted. 

The rest of the story is brief, and relatively uncom- 
plicated. The human animal and his interests being 
what they are, the Napoleonic wars made inevitable 
the Prussian revenge of 1870-1871; and the creation 
of the German Empire by successful Prussia made in- 
evitable the monstrous Prussian arrogance which, 
from the accession of William 11. until Verdun, fed 
itself upon dreams and plans of world empire. The 
boastful proclamation of this purpose, and the sys^ 
tematic creation of the most tremendous militaristic 
system ever seen or imagined, with declared intent to 
use it aggressively, made inevitable the alliance of 
Great Britain with France — her foe of a century 
earlier — against Germany — her ally at that time 
against Napoleon. 

So, at last, the giant democracies of Western Europe 
and the giant absolutisms of Central Europe con- 
fronted each other on the fields of France and Flanders 
in life and death grapple. The issue, always more or 
less confused before, became sharply defined. Democ- 
racy or dynasty will be sovereign, from this time on. 

"But Russia," some one will say. Yes, Russia. The 
case of Russia is not less clear than the issue between 
France and Prussia. The man who denies that this 
war is a conflict between democracy and dynasty be- 
cause, forsooth, Russia is governed by a dynasty, and 
Russia is fighting as the ally of France and of Great 
Britain, is one of those publicists described in Holy 
Writ who darken council by words without knowledge. 
The Russian dynasty, Teutonic in sympathy and more 
than half Teutonic in blood, would be fighting with 

Ii3l 



io6 

Germany if it dared. It does not dare because the 
Russian people, including the business classes, are 
ripe for revolution, and are in sympathy with the aspi- 
rations of the democratic peoples. If Germany is 
beaten in the war the house of Hohenzollern will fall. 
If the Hohenzollerns go the Romanoffs and the Haps- 
burgs also will go.^ 

Therefore, let the blazing truth about this war be 
repeated, emphasized, driven home, to every mind. 
This war is the life and death fight of dynasty at bay. 
It is the most portentous as it is the most gigantic and 
the most dreadful conflict in all human history, be- 
cause it is the last stand of the massed and organized 
forces of despotism against liberty, enlightenment and 
progress. If it is won by the democratic peoples it is 
won forever: the earth will never again be cursed by 
the impostors of "divine right." 

If the democratic peoples are defeated, what then? 
Then fighting will continue. All the work of centuries 
must be done over again. Insurrections, rebellions, 
revolutions must once more be the chief interest of 
men worthy of the name. Whoso talks of peace will 
deserve and will get only the scorn of the brave and 
the just. 

Here, again, it is fact, not argument, that is pre- 
sented. Mankind has not tasted self-government and 
individual liberty for nothing. A major number of 
human beings in Western Europe and in America will 
not submit tamely to the absolutist rule from which 
they have for a hundred years believed themselves to 
have escaped. Less than ten years before the war 

^ This jjaragraph was written three weeks before the revolution 
^as proclaimed, and was in type when the Czar abdicated his 
throne. 

[I4l 



107 

began everybody was predicting that the existing gen- 
eration would see liberal constitutional government 
established over the entire earth. Turkey, Persia, 
China would be republics, at least in name, and under 
the stimulus of self-respecting liberty would rapidly 
become republics in fact. Perhaps this forecast was a 
dream, but if it was, it will be dreamed again. 

These will be the inevitable reactions of the liberty- 
loving peoples of the world if democracy shall be de- 
feated now in Europe and later on in America. The 
first consequence of defeat in Europe, if destiny has 
decreed it, will be a concentration of world attention 
upon the United States. Then we shall find out 
whether this people is still a liberty-loving, indepen- 
dent nation with convictions of right and wrong, and 
courage enough left to assert its Monroe Doctrine 
against any power attempting to plant absolutist in- 
stitutions on this hemisphere. If we have become 
completely denatured we shall, of course, surrender 
and be done with it. That is too monstrous a propo- 
sition to be entertained even hypothetically, in 
thought. If there is a chemical trace of Americanism 
left in us we shall fight. 

Once more, let the comment be repeated, this is not 
argument. It is an inventory of facts. A defeat of 
Great Britain and France in the present European 
struggle means future war for the United States, and 
it will be a war of unimaginable horror. 

There is one more possibility to consider. If the 
war ends in a peace without victory, what may we 
expect? There are only two things that can happen 
then, and, therefore, only two things that a reasoning 
mind in that event can expect. The forces of democ- 
racy will more quickly recover and set about the 

[151 



io8 

business of preparing an adequate defense against the 
next onslaught of absolutism, or the forces of absolu- 
tism will more quickly recover and set about the 
business of preparation for the next war of aggression. 
The two sets of forces will not long remain in equilib- 
rium. Peace without victory will be an armistice, 
nothing more. 

The problem is now fully before us. We may look 
al it from any angle. We may turn it inside out and 
outside in. The issue remains specific, unalterable. 
There can be no enduring peace on this earth until 
absolutism is destroyed. A peace program that does 
not squarely face this fact is a pipe dream. 

If we do face it squarely we shall think straight 
about the possibilities and practicalities of all pro- 
posed leagues to enforce peace. 

A universal league, including all the sovereign na- 
tions, would be nothing more nor less than the existing 
state of affairs under another name. It would be the 
most absurd perpetual-motion machine ever yet ex- 
perimented with. The relations of the nations to one 
another, as defined and regulated by the international 
law of the world as it stood on July 31, 1914, consti- 
tuted a world league of peace, neither more nor less, 
and it went to smash. A league to keep the peace 
presumes that its component nations will honorably 
keep faith with one another. A league to enforce 
peace must be composed of nations that will both 
keep faith with one another and practically act in co- 
operation with one another against the law-breaker. 
Practically, these requirements can be met, and will 
be met, only if the component nations of the league 
share a common civilization, hold a common attitude 

[16] 



I09 

toward questions of right, liberty, law and polity, and 
share a sense of common danger threatening them 
from nations whose interests, ambitions, moralities 
and polities are antagonistic to theirs. 

Practically, therefore, there are now just two possi- 
bilities open to the would-be makers of leagues to 
enforce peace. There can be no universal league. 
That would be nothing but the adoption of a sounding 
name and a platform of pious resolutions. There can 
be no coherent, workable league made up of both 
democratic and dynastic nations. Fellowship of the 
wolf with the lamb has not yet been established. 
Peace between the hyena and the dog does not endure, 
and wild (or domesticated) asses have not ceased to be 
the prey of lions in the wilderness. But there can be 
a league of democratic nations to safeguard republican 
civilization in the world, and there can be a league of 
dynastic nations to safeguard dynastic authority and 
power. 

These two leagues exist now, and into one or the 
other of them every nation in the world will inevitably 
be drawn. One of them is a league to enforce peace, 
because peace will come and will endure if and when 
the other of these leagues is crushed. 

Let not the United States fatuously believe that it 
can stand aside and, from safe isolation, watch the 
titanic struggle between liberty and despotism. In 
the moral order of the universe it is not permitted to 
a nation, any more than it is permitted to an indi- 
vidual, to be neutral upon the great fundamental 
issues of conduct. He who does not dare to stand for 
what in his inmost soul he believes to be right must 
surely die the second death of those who become the 
craven slaves to what they once held to be wrong. 

[17] 



no 

The United States will play its part in the league of 
the democratic peoples to safeguard those politik:al 
principles which the league of the thirteen original 
American states was the first power to proclaim, or 
it will become the accomplice, and sooner or later the 
subject, of dynasty. 



Ii8 



International Conciliation 

Published monthly bj' the 
American Association for International Conciliation. 
Entered as second class matter at New York, N. Y., 
Postoffice, February 23, 1909, under act of July 16, 1894 



DOCUMENTS REGARDING THE 

EUROPEAN WAR 

Series No. XV 

The Entry of the United States 




MAY, 1917 
No. 114 



AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR INTERNATIONAL CONCILIATION 

SUB-STATION 84 C407 WEST II7TH STREET) 

NEW YORK CITY 



113 



I 

Address of the President of the United States 
Delivered at a Joint Session of the 
Two Houses of Congress 
April 2, 1917 

Gentlemen of the Congress: 

I have called the Congress into extraordinary session because there 
are serious, very serious, choices of policy to be made, and made 
immediately, which it was neither right nor constitutionally per- 
missible that I should assume the responsibility of making. 

On the third of February last I officially laid before you the extraor- 
dinary announcement of the Imperial German Government that on 
and after the first day of February it was its purpose to put aside 
all restraints of law or of humanity and use its submarines to sink 
every vessel that sought to approach either the ports of Great Britain 
and Ireland or the western coasts of Europe or any of the ports con- 
trolled by the enemies of Germany within the Mediterranean. That 
had seemed to be the object of the German submarine warfare earlier 
in the war, but since April of last year the Imperial Government had 
somewhat restrained the commanders of its undersea craft in con- 
formity with its promise then given to us that passenger boats 
should not be sunk and that due warning would be given to all other 
vessels which its submarines might seek to destroy, when no resistance 
was offered or escape attempted, and care taken that their crews 
were given at least a fair chance to save their lives in their open boats. 
The precautions taken were meagre and haphazard enough, as was 
proved in distressing instance after instance in the progress of the 
cruel and unmanly business, but a certain degree of restraint was 
observed. The new policy has swept every restriction aside. Vessels 
of every kind, whatever their flag, their character, their cargo, their 
destination, their errand, have been ruthlessly sent to the bottom 
without warning and without thought of help or mercy for those on 
board, the vessels of friendly neutrals along with those of belligerents. 
Even hospital ships and ships carrying relief to the sorely bereaved 
and stricken people of Belgium, though the latter were provided with 
safe conduct through the proscribed areas by the Geiman Government 

[5] 



114 

itself and were distinguished by unmistakable marks of identity, have 
been sunk with the same reckless lack of compassion or of principle. 

I was for a little while unable to believe that such things would in 
fact be done by any Government that had hitherto subscribed to 
humane practices of civilized nations. International law had its 
origin in the attempt to set up some law which would be respected 
and observed upon the seas, where no nation had right of dominion 
and where lay the free highways of the world. By painful stage 
after stage has that law been built up, with meagre enough results, 
indeed, after all was accomplished that could be accomplished, but 
always with a clear view, at least, of what the heart and conscience of 
mankind demanded. This minimum of right the German Govern- 
ment has swept aside, under the plea of retaliation and necessity and 
because it had no weapons which it could use at sea except these which 
it is impossible to employ as it is employing them without throwing 
to the wind all scruples of humanity or of respect for the understand- 
ings that were supposed to underlie the intercourse of the world. 
I am not now thinking of the loss of property involved, immense 
and serious as that is, but only of the wanton and wholesale destruc- 
tion of the lives of non-combatants, men, women, and children, 
engaged in pursuits which have always, even in the darkest periods 
of modern history, been deemed innocent and legitimate. Property 
can be paid for; the hves of peaceful and innocent people cannot be. 
The present German submarine warfare against commerce is a war- 
fare against mankind. ( 

It is a war against all nations. American ships have been sunk, 
American lives taken, in ways which it has stirred us very deeply to 
learn of, but the ships and people of other neutral and friendly nations 
have been sunk and overwhelmed in the waters in the same way. 
There has been no discrimination. The challenge is to all mankind. 
Each nation must decide for itself how it will meet it. The choice 
we make for ourselves must be made with a moderation of counsel 
and a temperateness of judgment befitting our character and our 
motives as a nation. We must put excited feeling away. Our motive 
will not be revenge or the victorious assertion of the physical might 
of the nation, but only the vindication of right, of human right, of 
which we are only a single champion. 

When I addressed the Congress on the twenty-sixth of February 
last I thought that it would suffice to assert our neutral rij:'its with 
arms, our right to use the seas against unlawful interference, our right 
to keep our people safe against unlawful violence. But armed neu- 
trality, it now appears, is impracticable. Because submarines are in 
effect outlaws when used as the German submarines have been used 
against merchant shipping, it is impossible to defend ships against 
their attacks as the law of nations has assumed that merchantmen 

[6] 



115 

would defend themselves against privateers or cruisers, visible craft 
giving chase upon the open sea. It is common prudence in such 
circumstances, grim necessity indeed, to endeavor to destroy them 
before they have shown their own intention. They must be dealt 
with upon sight, if dealt with at all. The German Government denies 
the right of neutrals to use arms at all within the areas of the sea 
which it has proscribed, even in the defense of rights which no 
modern publicist has ever before questioned their right to defend. 
The intimation is conveyed that the armed guards which we have 
placed on our merchant ships will be treated as beyond the pale of 
law and subject to be dealt with as pirates would be. Armed neu- 
trality is ineffectual enough at best; in such circumstances and in 
the face of such pretensions it is worse than ineffectual; it is likely 
only to produce what it was meant to prevent; it is practically cer- 
tain to draw us into the war without either the rights or the effective- 
ness of belligerents. There is one choice we cannot make, we are 
incapable of making; we will not choose the path of submission and 
suffer the most sacred rights of our nation and our people to be 
ignored or violated. The wrongs against which we now array our- 
selves are no common wrongs; they cut to the very roots of human 
life. 

With a profound sense of the solemn and even tragical character 
of the step I am taking and of the grave responsibilities which it 
involves, but in unhesitating obedience to what I deem my consti- 
tutional duty, I advise that the Congress declare the recent course 
of the Imperial German Government to be in fact nothing less than 
war against the government and people of the United States; that 
it formally accept the status of belligerent which has thus been 
thrust upon it; and that it take immediate steps not only to put 
the country in a more thorough state of defense, but also to exert 
all its power and employ all its resources to bring the Government of 
the German Empire to terms and end the war. 

What this will involve is clear. It will involve the utmost prac- 
ticable cooperation in counsel and action with the governments now 
at war with Germany, and, as incident to that, the extension to those 
governments of the most liberal financial credits, in order that our 
resources may so far as possible be added to theirs. It will involve 
the organization and mobilization of all the material resources of 
the country to supply the materials of war and serve the incidental 
needs of the nation in the most abundant and yet the most economi- 
cal and efficient way possible. It will involve the immediate full 
equipment of the navy in all respects but particularly in supplying 
it with the best means of dealing with the enemy's submarines. 
It will involve the immediate addition to the armed forces of the 
United States already provided for by law in case of war of at least 

[7] 



Ii6 

five hundred thousand men, who should, in my opinion, be chosen 
upon the principle of universal liability to service, and also the 
authorization of subsequent additional increments of equal force 
so soon as they may be needed and can be handled in training. 
It will involve also, of course, the granting of adequate credits to 
the Government, sustained, I hope, so far as they can equitably be 
sustained by the present generation, by well-conceived taxation. 

I say sustained so far as may be equitable by taxation because It 
seems to me that it would be most unwise to base the credits which 
will now be necessary entirely on money borrowed. It is our duty, I 
most respectfully urge, to protect our people so far as we may 
against the very serious hardships and evils which would be likely to 
arise out of the inflation which would be produced by vast loans. 

In carrying out the measures by which these things are to be 
accomplished we should keep constantly in mind the wisdom of inter- 
fering as little as possible in our own preparation and in the equip- 
ment of our own military forces with the duty — for it will be a very 
practical duty — of supplying the nations already at war with Ger- 
many with the materials which they can obtain only from us or by 
our assistance. They are in the field and we should help them in 
every way to be effective there. 

I shall take the liberty of suggesting, through the several executive 
departments of the Government, for the consideration of your com- 
mittees, measures for the accomplishment of the several objects I 
have mentioned. I hope that it will be your pleasure to deal with 
them as having been framed after very careful thought by the branch 
of the Government upon whom the responsibility of conducting the 
war and safeguarding the nation will most directly fall. 

While we do these things, these deeply momentous things, let us 
be very clear, and make very clear to all the world, what our motives 
and our objects are. My own thought has not been driven from its 
habitual and normal course by the unhappy events of the last two 
months, and I do not believe that the thought of the nation has been 
altered or clouded by them. I have exactly the same things in mind 
now that I had in mind when I addressed the Senate on the twenty- 
second of January last; the same that I had in mind when I addressed 
the Congress on the third of February and on the twenty-sixth of Feb- 
ruary. Our object now, as then, is to vindicate the principles of 
peace and justice in the life of the world as against selfish and auto- 
cratic power, and to set up among the really free and self-governed 
peoples of the world such a concert of purpose and of action as will 
henceforth ensure the observance of those principles. Neutrality 
is no longer feasible or desirable where the peace of the world is 
involved and the freedom of its peoples, and the menace to that 
peace and freedom lies in the existence of autocratic governments, 

[8] 



117 

backed by organized force which is controlled wholly by their will, 
not by the will of their people. We have seen the last of neutrality 
in such circumstances. We are at the beginning of an age in which 
it will be insisted that the same standards of conduct and of responsi- 
bility for wrong done shall be observed among nations and their 
governments that are observed among the individual citizens of 
civilized States. 

We have no quarrel Avith the German people. We have no feeling 
towards them but one of sympathy and friendship. It was not upon 
their impulse that their government acted in entering this war. It 
was not with their previous knowledge or approval. It was a war 
determined upon as wars used to be determined upon in the old, 
unhappy days when peoples were nowhere consulted by their rulers 
and wars were provoked and waged in the interest of dynasties or 
of little groups of ambitious men who were accustomed to use their 
fellow men as pawns and tools. Self-governed nations do not fill 
their neighbor states with spies or set the course of intrigue to bring 
about some critical posture of affairs which will give them an oppor- 
tunity to strike and make conquest. Such designs can be successfully 
worked out only under cover and where no one has the right to ask 
questions. Cunningly contrived plans of deception or aggression, 
carried, it may be, from generation to generation, can be worked out 
and kept from the light only within the privacy of courts or behind 
the carefully guarded confidences of a narrow and privileged class. 
They are happily impossible where public opinion commands and 
insists upon full information concerning all the nation's affairs. 

A steadfast concert for peace can never be maintained except by a 
partnership of democratic nations. No autocratic government could 
be trusted to keep faith within it or observe its covenants. It must 
be a league of honor, a partnership of opinion. Intrigue would eat 
its vitals away; the plottings of inner circles who could plan what 
they would and render account to no one would be a corruption 
seated at its very heart. Only free peoples can hold their purpose 
and their honor steady to a common end and prefer the interests of 
mankind to any narrow interest of their own. 

Does not every American feel that assurance has been added to 
our hope for the future peace of the world by the wonderful and 
heartening things that have been happening within the last few 
weeks in Russia? Russia was known by those who knew her best 
to have been always in fact democratic at heart, in all the vital 
habits of her thought, in all the intimate relationships of her people 
that spoke their natural instinct, their habitual attitude towards life. 
The autocracy that crowned the summit of her political structure, 
long as it had stood and terrible as was the reality of its power, was 
not in fact Russian in origin, character, or purpose; and now it has 

[9] 



Ii8 

been shaken off and the great, generous Russian people have been 
added, in all their naive majesty and might, to the forces that are 
fighting for freedom in the world, for justice, and for peace. Here is 
a fit partner for a League of Honor. 

One of the things that has served to convince us that the Prussian 
autocracy was not and could never be our friend is that from the 
very outset of the present war it has filled our unsuspecting communi- 
ties, and even our offices of government, with spies and set criminal 
intrigues everywhere afoot against our national unity of counsel, 
our peace within and without, our industries and our commerce. 
Indeed, it is now evident that its spies were here even before the 
war began; and it is unhappily not a matter of conjecture but a 
fact proved in our courts of justice that the intrigues which have 
more than once come perilously near to disturbing the peace and 
dislocating the industries of the country have been carried on at the 
instigation, with the support, and even under the personal direction 
of official agents of the Imperial Government accredited to the Gov- 
ernment of the United States. Even in checking these things and 
trying to extirpate them we have sought to put the most generous 
interpretation possible upon them because we knew that their 
source lay, not in any hostile feeling or purpose of the German 
people toward us, (who were, no doubt, as ignorant of them as we 
ourselves were), but only in the selfish designs of a Government that 
did what it pleased and told its people nothing. But they have 
played their part in serving to convince us at last that that Govern- 
ment entertains no real friendship for us, and means to act against 
our peace and security at its convenience. That it means to stir up 
enemies against us at our very doors the intercepted note to the 
German Minister at Mexico City is eloquent evidence. 

We are accepting this challenge of hostile purpose because we know 
that in such a government, following such methods, we can never 
have a friend; and that in the presence of its organized power, 
always lying in wait to accomplish we know not what purpose, there 
can be no assured security for the democratic governments of the 
world. We are now about to accept the gauge of battle with this 
natural foe to liberty and shall, if necessary, spend the whole force 
of the nation to check and nullify its pretensions amd its power. We 
are glad, now that we see the facts with no veil of false pretense 
about them, to fight thus for the ultimate peace of the world and for 
the liberation of its peoples, the German peoples included; for the 
rights of nations, great and small, and the privilege of men every- 
where to choose their way of life and of obedience. The world must 
be made safe for democracy. Ita peace must be planted upon the 
tested foundations of political liberty. We have no selfish ends 
to serve. We desire no conquest, no dominion. We seek no indem- 

Jio] 



119 

nities for ourselves, no material compensation for the sacrifices we 
shall freely make. We are but one of the champions of the rights 
of mankind. We shall be satisfied when those rights have been 
made as secure as the faith and the freedom of nations can make them. 

Just because we fight without rancor and without selfish object, 
seeking nothing for ourselves but what we shall wish to share with 
all free peoples, we shall, I feel confident, conduct our operations 
as belligerents without passion and ourselves observe with proud 
punctilio the principles of right and of fair play we profess to be 
fighting for. 

I have said nothing of the governments allied with the Imperial 
Government of Germany because they have not made war upon us 
or challenged us to defend our right and our honor. The Austro- 
Hungarian Government has, indeed, avowed its unqualified en- 
dorsement and acceptance of the reckless and lawless submarine 
warfare adopted now without disguise by the Imperial German 
Government, and it has therefore not been possible for this Govern- 
ment to receive Count Tarnowski, the Ambassador recently accred- 
ited to this Government by the Imperial and Royal Government of 
Austria-Hungary; but that Government has not actually engaged 
in warfare against citizens of the United States on the seas, and I 
take the liberty, for the present at least, of postponing a discussion 
of our relations with the authorities at Vienna. We enter this war 
only where we are clearly forced into it because there are no other 
means of defending our rights. 

It will be all the easier for us to conduct ourselves as belligerents 
in a high spirit of right and fairness because we act without animus, 
not with enmity toward a people or with the desire to bring any 
injury or disadvantage upon them, but only in armed opposition to 
an irresponsible government which has thrown aside all considera- 
tions of humanity and of right and is running amuck. We are, 
let me say again, the sincere friends of the German people, and shall 
desire nothing so much as the early re-establishment of intimate 
relations of mutual advantage between us, — however hard it may 
be for them, for the time being, to believe that this is spoken from 
our hearts. We have borne with their present government through 
all these bitter months because of that friendship, exercising a 
patience and forbearance which would otherwise have been im- 
possible. We shall, happily, still have an opportunity to prove that 
friendship in our daily attitude and actions toward the millions of 
men and women of German birth and native sympathy who live 
among us and share our life, and we shall be proud to prove it towards 
all who are in fact loyal to their neighbors and to the Government in 
the hour of test. They are, most of them, as true and loyal Americans 
as if they had never known any other fealty or allegiance. They will 

[II] 



I20 

be prompt to stand with us in rebuking and restraining the few who 
may be of a different mind jmd purpose. If there should be disloy- 
alty, it will be dealt with with a firm hand of stem repression; but, 
if it lifts its head at all, it will lift it only here and there and without 
countenance except from a lawless and malignant few. 



It is a distressing and oppressive duty. Gentlemen of the Congress, 
which I have performed in thus addressing you. There are, it may be, 
many months of fiery trial and sacrifice ahead of us. It is a fearful 
thing to lead this great peaceful people into war, into the most 
terrible and disastrous of all wars, civilization itself seeming to be 
in the balance. But the right is more precious than peace, and we 
shall fight for the things which we have always carried nearest our 
hearts — for democracy, for the right of those who submit to authority 
to have a voice in their own govenmients, for the rights and liberties 
of small nations, for a universal dominion of right by such a concert 
of free peoples as shall bring peace and safety to all nations and 
make the world itself at last free. To such a task we can dedicate 
our lives and our fortunes, everything that we are and everything 
that we have, with the pride of those who know that the day has 
come when America is privileged to spend her blood and her might 
for the principles that gave her birth and happiness and the peace 
which she has treasured. God helping her, she can do no other. 



[12] 



121 



II 

[Public Resolution — No, i — 6sth Congress.] 

Is. J. Res. I.I 

Sixty-fifth Congress of the United States of America; 

At the First Session 

Begun and held at the City of Wcishington on Monday, the second 
day of April, one thousand nine hundred and seventeen. 

Joint Resolution Declaring that a state of war exists between the 
Imperial German Government and the Government and the people of the 
United States and making provision to prosecute the same. 

Whereas the Imperial German Government has committed repeated 
acts of war against the Government and the people of the United 
States of America; Therefore, be it 

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled. That the state of war be- 
tween the United States and the Imperial German Government 
which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally 
decl£U"ed; and that the President be, and he is hereby, authorized 
and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the 
United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war 
against the Imperial German Government; and to bring the conflict 
to a successful termination all the resources of the country are hereby 
pledged by the Congress of the United States. 

Champ Clark 
Speaker' of the House of Representatives 
Thos. R. Marshall 
Vice President of the United States and 

President of the Senate. 
Approved, April 6, 191 7, 

WooDRow Wilson. 



[13] 



122 



III 

[EXISTENCE OF WAR— GERMAN EMPIRE.] 



tfje ^rcjsibent of fbt Winittb ^tatti of j^men'ca 
^ proclamation* 



WHEREAS the Congress of the United States in the exercise of 
the constitutional authority vested in them have resolved, by 
joint resolution of the Senate and House of Representatives bearing 
date this day "That the state of war between the United States and 
the Imperial German Government which has been thrust upon the 
United States is hereby formally declared"; 

Whereas it is provided by Section four thousand and sixty-seven 
of the Revised Statutes, as follows: 

Whenever there is declared a war between the United States 
and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or pred- 
atory incursion is perpetrated, attempted or threatened against 
the territory of the United States, by any foreign nation or 
government, and the President makes public proclamation of 
the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hos- 
tile nation or government, being males of the age of fourteen 
years and upwards, who shall be within the United States, jmd 
not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, re- 
strained, secured, and removed, as alien enemies. The President 
is authorized, in any such eyent, by his proclamation thereof, or 
other public act, to direct the conduct to be observed, on the 
part of the United States, toward the aliens who become so liable; 
the manner and degree of the restraint to which they shall be 
subject, and in what cases, and upon what security their resi- 
dence shall be permitted, and to provide for the removal of those 
who, not being permitted to reside within the United States, 
refuse or neglect to depart therefrom; and to establish any such 
regulations which are found necessary in the premises and for 
the public safety; 

Whereas, by Sections four thousand and sixty-eight, four 
thousand and sixty-nine, and four thousand and seventy, of the 
Revised Statutes, further provision is made relative to alien enemies; 

[14] 



123 

Now, Therefore, I, Woodrow Wilson, President of the United 
States of America, do hereby proclaim to all whom it may concern that 
a state of war exists between the United States and the Imperial Ger- 
man Government; and I do specially direct all officers, civil or mili- 
tary, of the United States that they exercise vigilance and zeal in the 
discharge of the duties incident to such a state of war; and I do, 
moreover, earnestly appeal to all American citizens that they, in 
loyal devotion to their country, dedicated from its foundation to the 
principles of liberty and justice, uphold the laws of the land, and 
give undivided and willing support to those measures which may be 
adopted by the constitutional authorities in prosecuting the war to 
a successful issue and in obtaining a secure and just peace; 

And, acting under and by virtue of the authority vested in me by 
the Constitution of the United States and the said sections of the 
Revised Statutes, I do hereby further proclaim and direct that the 
conduct to be observed on the part of the United States toward all 
natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of Germany, being male of 
the age of fourteen years and upwards, who shall be within the United 
States and not actually naturalized, who for the purpose of this 
proclamation and under such sections of the Revised Statutes are 
termed alien enemies, shall be as follows: 

All alien enemies are enjoined to preserve the peace toward the 
United States and to refrain from crime against the public safety, and 
from violating the laws of the United States and of the States and 
Territories thereof, and to refrain from actual hostility or giving in- 
formation, aid or comfort to the enemies of the United States, and to 
comply strictly with the regulations which are hereby or which may 
be from time to time promulgated by the President; and so long as 
they shall conduct themselves in accordance with law, they shall be 
undisturbed in the peaceful pursuit of their lives and occupations 
and be accorded the consideration due to all peaceful and law-abiding 
persons, except so far as restrictions may be necessary for their own 
protection and for the safety of the United States; and towards such 
alien enemies as conduct themselves in accordance with law, all citi- 
zens of the United States are enjoined to preserve the peace and to 
treat them with all such friendliness as may be compatible with 
loyalty and allegiance to the United States. 

And all alien enemies who fail to conduct themselves as so en- 
joined, in addition to all other penalties prescribed by law, shall be 
liable to restraint or to give security, or to remove and depart from the 
United States in the manner prescribed by Sections four thousand 
and sixty-nine and four thousand and seventy of the Revised Statutes, 
and as prescribed in the regulations duly promulgated by the Presi- 
dent; 

[15] 



124 

And pursuant to the authority vested in me, I hereby declare and 
establish the following regulations, which I find necessary in the 
premises and for the public safety: 

(i) An alien enemy shall not have in his possession, at any time 
or place, any firearm, weapon, or implement of war, or com- 
ponent part thereof, ammunition, maxim or other silencer, 
bomb or explosive or material used in the manufacture of 
explosives; 

(2) An alien enemy shall not have in his possession at any time 
or place, or use or operate any aircraft or wireless apparatus, 
or any form of signalling device, or any form of cipher code, or 
any paper, document or book written or printed in cipher in 
which there may be invisible writing; 

(3) All property found in the possession of an alien enemy in 
violation of the foregoing regulations shall be subject to seizure 
by the United States; 

(4) An alien enemy shall not approach or be found within one- 
half of a mile of any Federal or State fort, camp, arsenal, air- 
craft station. Government or naval vessel, navy yard, factory, 
or workshop for the manufacture of munitions of war or of 
any products for the use of the army or navy; 

(5) An alien enemy shall not write, print, or publish any attack 
or threat against the Government or Congress of the United 
States, or either branch thereof, or against the measures or 
policy of the United States, or against the person or property 
of any person in the military, naval, or civil service of the 
United States, or of the States or Territories, or of the District 
of Columbia, or of the municipal governments therein; 

(6) An alien enemy shall not commit or abet any hostile act 
against the United States, or give information, eiid or comfort 
to its enemies; 

(7) An alien enemy shall not reside in or continue to reside in, 
to remain in, or enter any locality which the President may 
from time to time designate by Executive Order as a prohibited 
area in which residence by an alien enemy shall be found by 
him to constitute a danger to the public peace and safety of 
the United States, except by permit from the President and 
except under such limitations or restrictions as the President 
may prescribe; 

(8) An alien enemy whom the President shall have reasonable 
cause to believe to be aiding or about to aid the enemy, or to 
be at large to the danger of the public peace or safety of the 
United States or to have violated or to be about to violate 
any of these regulations, shall remove to any location desig- 
nated by the President by Executive Order, and shall not 

[16] 



125 

remove therefrom without permit, or shall depart from the 
United States if so required by the President; ' 

(9) No alien enemy shall depart from the United States until he 
shall have received such permit as the President shall prescribe, 
or except under order of a court, judge, or justice, under Sec- 
tions four thousand and sixty-nine and four thousand and 
seventy of the Revised Statutes; 

(10) No alien enemy shall land in or enter the United States, 
except under such restrictions and at such places as the Presi- 
dent may prescribe; 

(11) If necessary to prevent violation of these regulations, all 
alien enemies will be obliged to register; 

(12) An alien enemy whom there may be reasonable cause to 
believe to be aiding or about to aid the enemy, or who may be 
at large to the danger of the public peace or safety, or who 
violates or who attempts to violate, or of whom there is 
reasonable ground to believe that he is about to violate, any 
regulation duly promulgated by the President, or any crim- 
inal law of the United States, or of the States or Territories 
thereof, will be subject to summary arrest by the United 
States Marshal, or his deputy, or such other officer as the Pres- 
ident shall designate, and to confinement in such penitentiary, 
prison, jail, military camp, or other place of detention as 
may be directed by the President. 

This proclamation and the regulations herein contained shall ex- 
tend and apply to all land and water, continental or insular, in any 
way within the jurisdiction of the United States. 

3n MitntiS MIfjcrcof, I have hereunto set my hand and 
caused the seal of the United States to be affixed. 

Done at the City of Washington, this sixth day of 
April, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine 
[seal.] hundred and seventeen, and of the independence of 
the United States the one hundred and forty-first. 
WOOD ROW WILSON 
By the President: 

Robert Lansing, 
Secretary of State 

[No. 1364-1 



[17] 



126 



IV 
Proclamation 

To the Citizens of New York: 

Upon just grounds and after long and patient forbearance, the 
President and the Congress of the United States have declared that 
by the act of the autocratic government which rules in the Empire of 
Germany war exists between the two countries, and the free people of 
America are about entering into the great World Conflict. MilUons 
of the people of this city were born in the countries engaged in this 
great war. No part of the earth is without its representatives here. 

I enjoin upon you all that you honor the Liberty which so many 
of you have sought in this land, and the free self-government of 
the American Democracy in which we all find our opportunity and 
individual freedom, by exercising kindly consideration, self-control, 
and respect to each other and to all others who dwell within our 
limits, that you one and all aid in the preservation of order and in 
the exercise of calm and deliberate judgment in this time of stress 
and tension. 

There will be some exceptional cases of malign influence and 
malicious purpose among you, and, as to them, I advise you all that 
full and timely preparation has been made adequate to the exigency 
which exists for the msiintenance of order throughout the City 
of New York; and, for the warning of the ill-disposed, I quote the 
statute of the United States which is applicable to all residents 
enjoying the protection of our laws whether they be citizens or not: 
"Whoever owing allegiance to the United States levies war against 
them or adheres to their enemies giving them aid and comfort within 
the United States or elsewhere is guilty of treason." The punish- 
ment prescribed by law for the crime of treason is death or at the 
discretion of the court imprisonment for not less than five years 
and a fine of not less than $10,000. All officers of the police have 
been especially instructed to give their prompt and efficacious atten- 
tion to the enforcement of this law. 

John Purroy Mitchel 

Mayor 



[18] 



127 



V 

President Wilson's Address to His Fellow 
Countrymen 

April i6, 1917 
My Fellow-Countrymen: 

The entrance of our own beloved country into the grim and terri- 
ble war for democracy and human rights which has shaken the world 
creates so many problems of national life and action which call for 
immediate consideration and settlement that I hope you will permit 
me to address to you a few words of earnest counsel and appeal with 
regard to them. 

We are rapidly putting our navy upon an effective war footing 
and are about to create and equip a great army, but these are the 
simplest parts of the great task to which we have addressed ourselves. 
There is not a single selfish element, so far as I can see, in the cause 
we are fighting for. We are fighting for what we believe and wish to 
be the rights of mankind and for the future peace and security of the 
world. To do this great thing worthily and successfully we must 
devote ourselves to the service without regard to profit or material 
advantage and with an energy and intelligence that will rise to the 
level of the enterprise itself. We must realize to the full how great 
the task is and how many things, how many kinds and elements of 
capacity and service and self-sacrifice, it involves. 

These, then, are the things we must do, and do well, besides 
fighting — the things without which mere fighting would be fruitless: 

We must supply abundant food for ourselves and for our armies 
and our seamen not only, but also for a large part of the nations 
with whom we have now made common cause, in whose support 
and by whose sides we shall be fighting. 

We must supply ships by the hundreds out of our shipyards to 
carry to the other side of the sea, submarines or no submarines, what 
will every day be needed there, and abundant materials out of our 
fields and our mines and our factories with which not only to clothe 
and equip our own forces on land and sea, but also to clothe and 
support our people, for whom the gallant fellows under arms can no 
longer work, to help clothe and equip the armies with which we are 

[19] 



128 



cooperating in Europe, and to keep tfie looms and manufactories 
there in raw material; coal to keep the fires going in ships at sea 
and in the furnaces of hundreds of factories across the sea; steel out 
of which to make arms and ammunition both here and there; rails 
for worn-out railways back of the fighting fronts; locomotives and 
rolling stock to take the place of those every day going to pieces; 
mules, horses, cattle for labor and for military service; everything 
with which the people of England and France and Italy and Russia 
have usually supplied themselves, but cannot now afford the men, 
the materials, or the machinery to make. 

It is evident to every thinking man that our industries, on the 
farms, in the shipyards, in the mines, in the factories, must be made 
more prolific and more efficient than ever, and that they must be 
more economically managed and better adapted to the particular 
requirements of our task than they have been; and what I want to 
say is that the men and the women who devote their thought and 
their energy to these things will be serving the country and con- 
ducting the fight for peace and freedom just as truly and just as 
effectively as the men on the battlefield or in the trenches. The 
industrial forces of the country, men and women alike, will be a 
great national, a great international. Service Army — a notable and 
honored host engaged in the service of the nation and the world, the 
efficient friends and saviors of free men everywhere. Thousands, 
nay, hundreds c' thousands, of men otherwise liable to military 
service will of right and of necessity be excused from that service 
and assigned to the fundamental, sustaining work of the fields and 
factories and mines, and they will be as much part of the great 
patriotic forces of the nation as the men under fire. 

I take the liberty, therefore, of addressing this word to the far- 
mers of the country and to all who work on the farms: The supreme 
need of our own nation and of the nations with which we are co- 
operating is an abundance of supplies, and especially of foodstuffs. 
The importance of an adequate food supply, especially for the present 
year, is superlative. Without abundant food, alike for the armies 
and the peoples now at war, the whole great enterprise upon which we 
have embarked will break down and fail. The world's food reserves 
are low. Not only during the present emergency, but for some time 
after peace shall have come, both our own people and a large propor- 
tion of the people of Europe must rely upon the harvests in America. 
Upon the farmers of this country, therefore, in large measure, rests 
the fate of the war and the fate of the nations. May the nation not 
count upon them to omit no step that will increase the production 
of their land or that will bring about the most effectual coQperation 
in the sale and distribution of their products? The time is short. 
It is of the most imperative importance that everything possible 



: - - 129 

be done, and done immediately, to make sure of large harvests. I 
call upon young men and old alike and upon the able-bodied boya 
of the land to accept and act upon this duty — to turn in hosts to the 
farms and make certain that no pains and no labor is lacking in this 
great matter. 

I particularly appeal to the farmers of the South to plant abundant 
foodstuffs as well as cotton. They can show their patriotism in no 
better or more convincing way than by resisting the great temptation 
of the present price of cotton and helping, helping upon a great 
scale, to feed the nation and the peoples everywhere who are fighting 
for their liberties and for our own. The variety of their crops will 
be the visible measure of their comprehension of their national duty. 

The Govenunent of the United States and the goverimjents jof 
the several States stand ready to cooperate. They will do every- 
thing possible to assist farmers in securing an adequate supply of 
seed, an adequate force of laborers when they are most needed, at 
harvest time, and the means of expediting shipments of fertilizers 
and farm machinery, as well as of the crops themselves when har- 
vested. The course of trade shall be as unhampered as it is possible 
to make it, and there shall be no unwarranted manipulation of the 
nation's food supply by those who handle it on its way to the con- 
sumer. This is our opportunity to demonstrate the efficiency of a 
great democracy, and we shall not fall short of it! 

This let me say to the middlemen of every sort, whether they are 
handling our foodstuffs or our raw materials of manufacture or the 
products of our mills and factories: The eyes of the country will be 
especially upon you. This is your opportunity for signal service, 
efficient and disinterested. The country expects you, as it expects 
all others, to forego unusual profits, to organize and expedite ship- 
ments of supplies of every kind, but especially of food, with an eye 
to the service you are rendering and in the spirit of those who enlist 
in the ranks, for their people, not for themselves. I shall confidently 
expect you to deserve and win the confidence of people of every sort 
and station. 

To the men who run the railways of the country, whether they be 
managers or operative employees, let me say that the railways are the 
arteries of the nation's life and that upon them rests the immense 
responsibility of seeing to it that those arteries suffer no obstruction 
of any kind, no inefficiency or slackened power. To the merchant 
let me suggest the motto, "Small profits and quick service"; and to 
the shipbuilder the thought that the life of the war depends upon 
him. The food and the war supplies must be carried across the 
seas no matter how many ships are sent to the bottom. The places 
of those that go down must be supplied, and supplied at once. To 
the miner let me say that he stands where the farmer does: the work 

[21] 



I30 

of the world waits on him. If he slackens or fails, armies and states- 
men are helpless. He also is enlisted in the great Service Army. The 
manufacturer does not need to be told, I hope, that the nation looks 
to him to speed and perfect every process; and I want only to remind 
his employees that their service is absolutely indispensable and is 
counted on by every man who loves the country and its liberties. 

Let me suggest, also, that every one who creates or cultivates a 
garden helps, and helps greatly, to solve the problem of the feeding of 
the nations; and that every housewife who practices strict economy 
puts herself in the ranks of those who serve the nation. This is the 
time for America to correct her unpardonable fault of wastefulness 
and extravagance. Let every man and every woman assume the 
duty of careful, provident use and expenditure as a public duty, as a 
dictate of patriotism which no one can now expect ever to be excused 
or forgiven for ignoring. 

In the hope that this statement of the needs of the nation and of 
the world in this hour of supreme crisis may stimulate those to whom 
it comes and remind all who need reminder of the solemn duties of a 
time such as the world has never seen before, I beg that all editors 
and publishers everywhere will give as prominent publication and as 
wide circulation as possible to this appeal. I venture to suggest, 
also, to all advertising agencies that they would perhaps render a 
very substantial and timely service to the country if they would 
give it widespread repetition. And I hope that clergymen will not 
think the theme of it an unworthy or inappropriate subject of com- 
ment and homily from their pulpits. 

The supreme test of the nation has come. We must all speak, 
act, and serve together! 

WooDROw Wilson 



.22] 



International Conciliation 



Published monthly by the 
American Assofiation for International Conciliation. 
Entered as second class matter at New York, N. Y., 
Postoffice, February 23, 1909, under act of July 16, 1894 



THE WAR AND THE COLLEGES 

From an Address to Representatives of Colleges 

and Universities, Delivered at Continental Hall, 

Washington, D. C, May 5, 1917 




HON. NEWTON D. BAKER 

Secretary of War 

JUNE, 1917 
No. 115 



AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR INTERNATIONAL CONCILIATION 

SUB- STATION 84 (407 WEST II7TH STREET) 

NEW YORK CITY 



133 



THE WAR AND THE COLLEGES 

From an Address Delivered at Continental Hall 
Washington, May 5, 191 7 

By Hon. Newton D. Baker 
Secretary of War 

The War Department is especially anxious not to 
disturb unduly the educational systems of the country. 
I have had within the last two or three weeks a very 
large number of more or less intricate and difficult 
«luestions arising in the colleges, and no doubt each 
of you has had to face those questions probably in 
more acute form than L When the call to national 
service arose, spirited young men everywhere of course 
wanted to be employed in a patriotic way, and I 
suppose there is scarcely a boy in any college in the 
country who has not very anxiously addressed to 
himself the question: "What can I do?" A number 
of college presidents have done me the honor of asking 
me what is the answer to that question, and I have 
had to confess each time that I thought there was no 
general answer; that even in those cases where it 
would be obviously better for a boy to stay at college 
and prepare for later and fuller usefulness, yet if the 
boy in so doing acquired a low view of his own 
courage, and felt that he was electing the less worthy 
course, the effect on the boy himself of that state of 
mind toward his own actions probably was so pre- 
judicial that it ought not to be encouraged. 

[5I 



134 

I think this, though, is more or less clear to those 
of us who look at it from the outside : First, that the 
country needs officers. There is no preference of 
college men for officers, but because a man has had 
academic opportunities he has to start with, pre- 
sumptively at least, a better foundation upon which 
to build the learning which an officer must have ; and 
therefore to a very substantial extent the country 
desires its college graduates and its college-bred men 
of suitable age in the training camps in order that 
they may be rapidly matured into officers and used 
in the training of the new forces. 

To the extent that the men in college are physically 
disqualified, or to the extent that they are too young 
to meet the requirements of the Department, it seems 
quite clear that in the present state of the emergency 
their major usefulness lies in remaining in the college, 
going forward with their academic work; and the 
colleges can, I think, lend some color of patriotic 
endeavor to their so doing by such simple modifica- 
tions of their courses and curricula as will show the 
boys who stay that they are being directly equipped 
for subsequent usefulness if the emergency lasts until 
their call comes. 

Now, as I understand it, a part of the purpose of 
this gathering is to discuss among you gentlemen the 
question of what those modifications in your curricula 
ought to be. The Ordnance Department of the Army 
and the Coast Artillery are the branches of the Army 
in which technical scientific training and attainments 
are of the most importance. Those are the two tech- 
nical branches of the Army hardest to keep filled ; and 
I think even in times of peace that it is highly desir- 
able that the great technical schools of the country 

[61 



135 

should hav^ a curriculum which would be adapted to 
train men for entrance into these scientific depart- 
ments of the Army. 

A number of questions have arisen with regard to 
the possibility of the establishment of junior training 
camp or training corps divisions in colleges. Pretty 
nearly every college in this country, when the national 
emergency arose, applied for training camp or training 
corps facilities. In some, such corps had already 
been established ; and there was an immediate and so 
far as I know an almost unanimous demand on the 
part of the colleges of the country in which such corps 
had not been established for their establishment. 
That presented to the War Department several diffi- 
cult problems which we have undertaken to solve, 
and I trust we have solved them wisely, though nobody 
could be more sensible than I am that our solution 
has not been satisfactory in all instances. 

The problem presented by those applications was 
this: That we are not now dealing with an Army of 
two or three hundred thousand men. We are about 
to deal with an Army of a million and a half men ; and 
the mills and manufactories in this country which 
are equipped and experienced in making Army sup- 
plies and equipment are too few to turn out the 
amount necessary for this larger force. 

We therefore have this added burden — that instead 
of going out into a customary market to buy usual 
supplies, we must go into an unfamiliar market, go 
clear back to the raw material in all likelihood, and 
persuade persons, who have not hitherto manufactured 
the sort of things we desire to have, to divert their 
energies from their normal domestic production into 

[7] 



136 

the production necessary for the War Department. 
That of course presented to us the problem of where 
we are going to get the necessary equipment of uni- 
forms, clothing, and other sorts of supplies which this 
large army will need; and it necessitates a very 
parsimonious and husbanding treatment of such sup- 
plies as we have or which are in immediate prospect. 

Therefore, on that ground, it seems wise not to 
encourage the present formationof junior corps which 
would be outside of the emergency forces which it is our 
first duty to provide and equip, because equipping 
such junior corps would to that extent delay and 
diminish the quantity of supplies and equipment 
available to the actual forces which are first to go 
into training. 

The second aspect of this matter is with regard to 
officers for training purposes. We need something 
like 20,000 additional officers for the training of the 
first increment of 500,000 men to be secured under 
the selective process. These training camps, it is 
hoped, will give us a very substantial number of those. 
Additional officers' training camps later on may be 
necessary so that we can secure those officers. It must 
be an exceedingly intensive process; in other words, 
there must be a very great deal of individual atten- 
tion paid to these young men who in three months 
are to acquire what ordinarily three years is none too 
much to acquire well; and therefore the Army is 
going, to some extent at least, to model its treatment 
of the problem upon the tutorial system with which 
colleges are so familiar, and, as far as we can, give 
individual treatment to the young men in these train- 
ing corps. That will necessitate a very rigid devotion 
of the available officers for training purposes to these 

[8] 



137 

training camps, and makes it impossible for us to 
disperse our officer talent and energy by the establish- 
ment of these junior corps widespread over the country, 
since these camps would, of course, require competent 
officers to make them succeed. 

It was then suggested that there perhaps might 
be a few such junior camps established at certain 
places, and that the college men from other colleges 
might be centered into a few colleges — one, perhaps, 
in each training district — and taught in those places 
without too great a draft upon our officer training 
material. I discovered that the effect of such a 
process as that would be to draft off from all of the 
colleges at which such corps were not established their 
students into the colleges where such corps were 
established; and the effect of that seems to me to 
threaten a very profound disorganization of the entire 
academic system of the country. It seems to me that 
if there were forty colleges in a district, and at only 
one of those colleges was military training available, 
the other thirty-nine would find themselves, tempo- 
rarily at any rate, losing a great part of their student 
body. They would all want to go to the one at which 
this instruction was possible, and then perhaps form- 
ing friendships and alliances there, being imbued with 
the military spirit, they would return reluctantly to 
the colleges which were their normal affiliation; and 
so it seemed to me that such a plan might prove to be 
destructive of the reposewhichit is everybody 'sdesire to 
keep as far as possible in the community and common 
life of this country during this time of emergency. 

The policy of the Department, therefore, has been 
to maintain in those colleges where reserve corps have 
been established prior to this emergency such corps as 

[9] 



138 

established, but only so long as the officers there detailed 
can be spared from the more important duty of train- 
ing the actual forces which are being fitted for actual 
service. No sort of promise can be made as to how 
long that will be maintained, but it will be maintained 
in previously established places just as long as it is 
consistent to have those officers detailed for that 
service. That is the best answer we have been able 
to give to the problem. 

Gentlemen, I find myself regretting that I have 
taken so much time to discuss a purely technical 
question. The presence of a body of men like this is 
an inducement to talk about an entirely different 
thing, and I must deal with that in a sentence or two. 

In a democracy, the calling together of the forces 
of the Nation for so unfamiliar a task as war neces- 
sarily produces a profound dislocation of practically 
every art and every association which in normal times 
is characteristic of the Nation's life. The college 
presidents, people who are connected with the institu- 
tions of higher learning, have a peculiar opportunity 
to exercise a steadying and restraining influence. I 
think we ought all to adopt as the daily maxim of our 
talk and our activity that the country shall make 
every sacrifice necessary break up every alliance and 
every activity necessary, to bring our force to bear in 
the most effective way, but that we ought to preserve 
the country for the common good against every un- 
necessary dislocation and against every unnecessary 
abridgment of the processes of our common life. 

I do not know any source from which that sort of 
cool, helpful thinking can emanate with as much effect 
as from the college presidents of this country. We 

[lo] 



139 

do not want to chill enthusiasm. We want to preserve 
enthusiasm and cultivate it and use it; but we do 
want to be discriminating in our enthusiasm, and 
prevent people getting the notion that they are not 
helping the country unless they do something different, 
which very often is not the case at all. ^ The largest 
usefulness may come from doing the same thing — 
just continuing to do it. Now, it is not unnatural 
that there should be these ebullitions of feeling, this 
desire to change occupation as a badge of changed 
service and devotion to ideals; but you gentlemen 
can exercise a very steadying influence in that regard. 
One other thought: I think everybody in this 
country has been delighted at the freedom of our 
country from ill considered and impulsive action in 
connection with this great undertaking. I think every- 
body in this country has been pleased at the good 
feeling which our people have maintained toward one 
another, the freedom of the country from internal dis- 
turbance and embittered difference of opinion. I hope 
that will continue; I think it will continue; and yet in a 
country made up as ours is, it is very easy to imagine 
difficulty arising from an indiscretion or from an over- 
zealous state of mind. I can easily imagine a man 
whose affiliations, for instance, would be with a 
German ancestry and German traditions, making an 
indiscreet remark and arousing a very great deal of 
resentment, and perhaps a heady community impulse 
against not only him and his remark but general- 
ized against all persons who bore the same kind 
of name or the same sort of traditional affiliation; 
and I can easily imagine a community getting itself 
worked up into a pretty feverish state of opinion, and 
feeling that it ought to resent as disloyal what was 

[II] 



140 

perhaps only a thoughtless and unmeant indiscretion. 

Now, we are at the beginning of this. We are 
going to have losses on the sea; we are going to have 
losses in battle; our communities are going to be 
subjected to the rigid discipline of multiplied personal 
griefs scattered all through the community, and we 
are going to search the cause of those back to their 
foundation, and our feelings are going to be torn and 
our nerves made raw. That is a place for physicians 
of public opinion to exercise a curative impulse; and 
you gentlemen and the young men who are in your 
colleges, who go to their homes from your colleges 
and write to their homes from your colleges, and make 
up a very large part of the direction of public opinion, 
can exercise a curative influence by preaching the 
doctrine of tolerance, by exemplifying the fact that 
it is not necessary for a nation like the United States, 
which is fighting for the vindication of a great ideal, 
to discolor its purpose by hatreds or by the entertain- 
ment of any unworthy emotion. 

We are in a great enterprise, gentlemen. The 
world must have peace. The destruction of life and 
property which is now going on in the world is intol- 
erable. We have at the end of a long and patient 
experience discovered that the world cannot be 
rescued from slaughter and destruction by any other 
process than a major exercise of the great martial 
force of this Republic; but we ought never to lose 
sight of the fact that the purpose of this war is not 
aggression, is not punishment; it is not inspired by 
resentments nor fed by ambitions, but it is loyalty to 
an ideal, and that ideal is freeing the world from an 
impossible international philosophy, a philosophy in 
which, if it should prevail, no freedom is left or is safe. 

[12] 



International Conciliation 



Published monthly by the 
American Association for International Conciliation. 
Entered as second class matter at New York, N. Y., 
Postoffice, February 23, 1909. under act of July 16, 1894 



THE treaty rights OF ALIENS 




BY 



WILLIAM HOWARD TAFT 



JULY, 1917 
No. 116 



AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR INTERNATIONAL CONCILIATION 

SUB-STATION 84 (407 WEST II7TH STREET) 

NEW YORK CITY 



143 



THE TREATY RIGHTS OF ALIENS 
By William Howard Taft 

We are fighting this war to make the world safe for 
Democracies. The issue is now between the Democ- 
racies of the world and its Autocracies. The end must 
be, as we all hope, the promotion of the rule of the 
people in all the important nations. In that case, war 
as between countries will not be begun without the 
wish of the majority of their respective peoples. It 
will become, therefore, even more important than here- 
tofore in the maintenance of peace that each govern- 
ment representing its people in its foreign relations, 
and being answerable for them to another people, 
should be able to perform its promises promptly, and 
should certainly not keep them only to the ear and 
break them to the hope. When one nation has made 
an agreement with another to receive the citizens of 
that other hospitably and secure them in peaceful res- 
idence and the pursuit of a livelihood, and such citizens 
are not protected, but are killed or injured, the breach 
of promise may easily grow into a cause of war. A 
people naturally resents injustice and cruelty to their 
kith and kin in another country. 

In one of my visits to Japan as Secretary of War, I 
had the pleasure of meeting and talking with Count 
Hayashi, one of the great statesmen and diplomats of 
that wonderful empire, and recently deceased. We 
were discussing very freely the relations between 
Japan and the United States, and he said that he felt 

[5] 



144 

confident that I was right in saying that the United 
States had no desire for a war with Japan but, on the 
contrary, wished to avoid it by every honorable means. 
He expressed the hope that I credited his statement 
that the empire of Japan and those responsible for its 
government were equally anxious to make the peace 
between the two countries permanent and abiding. 
"But," said he, "my people have grown much in inter- 
national stature. They have won successes, civil and 
military. They have a deep love of their country and 
of their fellow countrymen, and perhaps they have 
what you call 'patriotic self-conceit.' However this 
may be, their sensitiveness as a nation has increased, 
and it makes them deeply resent an injustice or an in- 
vidious discrimination against them in a foreign 
country by foreign people. The only possible danger 
of a breach between our two nations that I can im- 
agine would be one growing out of the mistreatment of 
our people, living under the promised protection of 
the United States, through the lawless violence of a 
mob directed against them as Japanese." 

Now what is true of the relations between the United 
States and Japan is true of our relations with most 
nations. We are party to treaties with them in which 
it is stipulated that the nationals of one contracting 
nation may reside within the jurisdiction of the other 
and, complying with the other's laws, may legally pur- 
sue their vocations or business and enjoy the same pro- 
tection to life, liberty, and property that its own citizens 
enjoy. 

Since 1811 we have had many cases of mob violence 
against aliens in which they have been killed or griev- 
ously injured. While in all of these cases we have 
denied liability, Congress has generally made pay- 

[6] 



145 

ments to those who were injured and to the famihes of 
those who were killed. In some cases the amount paid 
was recited in the act of appropriation to be a gratuity 
without admission of liability. In other cases the 
amount was paid without such reservation. In no 
case have the perpetrators of these outrages been pun- 
ished. In most cases the local authorities have evi- 
dently sympathized with the mob spirit or have been 
so terrorized by it that they have made no real inves- 
tigation of the facts. The sequence has been : first, the 
mob; second, the felonious assault, or murder, and 
destruction of property; third, the farce of a State in- 
vestigation; fourth, the indemnity to the injured and 
the family of the dead ; and fifth, the complete immu- 
nity of the guilty. Such a list of outrages reaching 
clear from 1811 to 1910 without punishment is not a 
record in which we can take pride. 

How can we remedy this state of affairs? We can 
do it by valid Federal legislation conferring on the 
Federal Government and Federal courts executive and 
judicial power to prevent and punish such crimes 
against aliens in violation of their treaty rights. This 
will have two results. One will be that prosecutions 
in the Federal Court directed from Washington will be 
uninfluenced by local feeling and will be often effective 
in bringing the guilty to punishment. The second will 
be that whether they are so effective or not, the fact 
that they can be directed from Washington by the 
Chief Executive of the nation will have a satisfying 
effect upon the feelings of the outraged country, which 
is now altogether wanting and which it is impossible 
to secure. 

Our Secretaries of State, in answer to complaints of 
foreign governments in such cases, have called atten- 

[7] 



146 

tion to the fact that our general government has no 
jurisdiction to direct the prosecution under Federal 
law of the perpetrators of these outrages. They have 
been content to point out that the persons killed or 
injured have had the same protection that citizens of 
this country have had under state laws. This, I may 
add, in all instances under examination when race 
hatred has been involved, has been no protection at 
all. In such cases the jury are generally drawn from 
the immediate neighborhood of the country and town 
in which the outrage is committed, and the result is 
that the grand jury and the petit jury are composed of 
the relatives and neighbors of the criminals and the 
prosecution is a farce. The situation is this, then ; We 
make a promise and then we let somebody else at- 
tempt to perform it, and when it is not performed, as 
it never is, or at least, never has been, we say, "We are 
not responsible for this. It is somebody else's failure. 
Of course we promised that your citizens would be 
treated properly, but you ought to have known that 
this promise was not to be performed by our govern- 
ment, but by a state government independent of us. 
However, say no more about it. We'll salve your feel- 
ing by a little money, the amount of which we'll fix." 
It does not soothe one's pride of country to note the 
number of lynchings of our own citizens that go un- 
whipped of justice, and that are properly held up to 
us with scorn whenever we assume, as we too fre- 
quently do, a morality higher than, and a government 
better than, those of other people. To avoid responsi- 
bilities for lynchings of our own citizens, however, we 
can live in a state in which they do not occur. But 
when aliens are lynched anywhere in our country and 
our national honor is at stake, we can not escape hu- 

[81 



147 

miliation. Congressional legislation putting the pro- 
tection of aliens and the prosecution of the invaders of 
their rights in the Federal jurisdiction should find a 
strong reason in our pride of country and our desire to 
be considered in the first rank of civilized nations 
observant of treaty obligations. Another reason is 
the danger of war that may be thrust on us by the law- 
less, cruel, prejudiced action of the people of a town, 
city, or a county in dealing with subjects or citizens of 
other countries. The selfishness of communities con- 
trolled by the labor unions or by farming groups on 
our West Coast makes them willing to involve us in 
an utterly needless quarrel with Japan by action likely 
to arouse in the Japanese at home an intense feeling of 
hostility to this country. Of course, every one recog- 
nizes that the Government of the United States can 
not guarantee the detection and arrest of the guilty in 
outrages upon aliens, or contract that when they are 
caught and tried, conviction will necessarily follow. 
In no civilized country can this be assured. But that 
necessary uncertainty does not prevent promptness 
and energy on the part of the executive agents of the 
government in its effort to identify and arrest the of- 
fenders and to find the evidence against them, or 
courage and efficiency on the part of the prosecuting 
officers in properly preparing the case for the grand 
and petit juries. It is the utter absence of any sincere 
effort of the local authorities in such cases to bring the 
criminals to justice that naturally angers foreign 
peoples when they are asking reparation for the awful 
results of mob violence. 

We can all remember the deep feeling aroused in our 
whole people over the massacre of Jews in parts of 
Russia, and the intense indignation that manifested 

[9] 



I4S 

itself among their co-religionists in this country, and 
how skeptical our people properly were concerning 
official denials of governmental responsibility for such 
outrages. Let us try to look at lynchings of aliens in 
this country from the standpoint of their fellow coun- 
trymen at home. In the utter absence of protection 
or attempted punishment of the murderers, can we 
wonder that- there should be a deep-seated suspicion 
on the part of the home people that the bloody riots 
have been with either the connivance or acquiescence 
of our authorities? 

The American Bar Association has proposed Con- 
gressional legislation which would work a change in 
the present unsatisfactory state of affairs. It would 
provide that any act committed in any state or terri- 
tory of the United States, in violation of the rights of 
a citizen or subject of a foreign country secured to 
such citizen or subject by treaty between the United 
States and such foreign country, which act constitutes 
a crime under the laws of such state or territory, shall 
constitute a like crime against the peace and dignity 
of the United States, punishable in like manner as in 
the courts of said state or territory, and within the 
period limited by the laws of such state or territory, 
and may be prosecuted in the courts of the United 
States and, upon conviction, the sentence executed in 
like manner as sentences upon convictions for crimes 
under the laws of the United States. 

jThere is no doubt about the validity of such legisla- 
tion under the Constitution. It has been expressly 
recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States 
in the case of Baldwin vs. Franks, 120 U. S. 678. That 
case involved the punishment of a man for using law- 
less violence against Chinese aliens resident in Cali- 

[10] 



149 

fornia by driving them from their residences and de- 
priving them of their legitimate business, contrary to 
a treaty made between the United States and China 
in 1 88 1. The Supreme Court said that the treaty- 
making power had been surrendered by the States and 
given to the United States, and that treaties made by 
the United States and in force were part of the supreme 
law of the land ; and that the United States had power 
under the Constitution to provide for the punishment 
of those guilty of depriving Chinese subjects of any of 
the rights, privileges, immunities, or exemptions guar- 
anteed to them by the treaty. Upon examination of 
the statute under which the indictment had been 
found, however, they held that it was not so worded as 
to denounce as a Federal crime such a violation of 
alien rights. New legislation on the subject has been 
vigorously recommended by President Harrison, by 
President McKinley, by President Roosevelt, and by 
myself. President Roosevelt, in his annual message 
of December, 1906, spoke as follows: 

One of the great embarrassments attending the performance of 
our international obligations is the fact that the statutes of the 
United States are entirely inadequate. They fail to give to the 
national government sufficiently ample power, through United 
States courts and by the use of the Army and Navy, to protect 
aliens in the rights secured to them under solemn treaties which 
are the law of the land. I, therefore, earnestly recommend that 
the criminal and civil statutes of the United States be so amended 
and added to as to enable the President, acting for the United 
States Government, which is responsible in our international re- 
lations, to enforce the rights of aliens under treaties. There 
should be no particle of doubt as to the power of the national 
government completely to perform and enforce its own obliga- 
tions to other nations. The mob of a single city may at any time 
perform acts of lawless violence against some class of foreigners 
which would plunge us into war. That city by itself would be 

[II] 



I50 

powerless to make defense against the foreign power thus as- 
saulted, and if independent of this government it would never 
venture to jjerform or f)ermit the performance of the acts com- 
plained of. The entire power and the whole duty to protect the 
offending city or the offending community lies in the hands of the 
United States Government. It is unthinkable that we should 
continue a policy under which a given locality may be allowed to 
commit a crime against a friendly nation, and the United States 
Government limited not to preventing the commission of the 
crime, but, in the last resort, to defending the people who have 
committed it against the consequences of their own wrong-doing. 

In my Inaugural Address of March 4, 1909, I 
brought the subject to the attention of Congress as 
strongly as I could, as follows: 

By proper legislation we may, and ought to, place in the hands 
of the Federal executive the means of enforcing the treaty rights 
of such aliens in the courts of the Federal Government. It puts 
our Government in a pusillanimous position to make definite 
engagements to protect aliens and then to excuse the failure to 
perform those engagements by an explanation that the duty to 
keep them is in States or cities, not within our control. If we 
would promise we must put ourselves in a position to perform 
our promise. We can not permit the possible failure of justice 
due to local prejudice in any State or municipal government, to 
expose us to the risk of a war which might be avoided if Federal 
jurisdiction was asserted by suitable legislation by Congress and 
carried out by proper proceedings instituted by the executive in 
the courts of the national government. 

This action by the four Chief Executives indicates 
that those having the greatest official responsibility 
for our foreign relations feel the crying need for such 
legislation. 



[12] 



International Conciliation 



Published monthly by the 
American Association for International Conciliation. 
Entered as second clstss matter at New York, N. Y., 
Postoffice, February 23, 1909, under act of July 16, 1894 



THE EFFECT OF DEMOCRACY ON 
INTERNATIONAL LAW 




BY 

ELIHU ROOT 



AUGUST, 1917 
No. 117 



AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR INTERNATIONAL CONCILIATION 

SUB-STATION 84 (407 WEST II7TH STREET) 

NEW YORK CITY 



153 



THE EFFECT OF DEMOCRACY ON 
INTERNATIONAL LAW 

Opening Address by Elihu Root, as President of the American 
Society of International Law, at the Eleventh Annual Meeting 
of the Society in Washington, April 26, 191 7. 

In trying to estimate the future possibilities of Inter- 
national Law, and to form any useful opinion as to the 
methods by which the law can be made more binding 
upon international conduct, serious difficulties are 
presented in the unknown quantities introduced by 
the great war, which is steadily drawing into its circle 
the entire civilized world. Hitherto, we have been un- 
able to form any real judgment as to which of the two 
warring groups of nations will succeed in the end. Our 
expectations and beliefs upon that question have been 
the products of our sympathies and our hopes and of 
an optimism for which it is now happily more easy to 
find just grounds than ever before. Nor have we been 
able to measure the effects of the war upon national 
character, and the probable results in national modes 
of thought and conduct. 

A just estimate of such forces is not easy. The 
modern era of nationalities has been marked by three 
great convulsions which turned the minds of all civi- 
lized men towards peace, and led them to seek means 
to make peace secure. 

The Thirty Years' War produced the Peace of West- 
phalia and the system of independent nationalities in 

[5] 



154 

Europe, and it produced Grotius and the science of 
International Law; and practically every power in 
Europe except the Ottoman was a party to the agree- 
ment to maintain the system thus established. Yet, 
the century which followed exhibited the most cynical 
and universal disregard for the law, and for the Treaty, 
and for all treaties. 

The Napoleonic wars produced the Treaty of Vienna . 
and the Holy Alliance. That sincere but misguided 
effort sought to fix the limits and regulate the conduct 
of the nations of Europe in accordance with the prin- 
ciples which the treaty-making powers then believed 
to be in keeping with right and justice, and to be ef- 
fective for the permanent peaceful organization of the 
community of nations, and it sought to maintain the 
status quo by the establishment of a League to Enforce 
Peace in accordance with their conception. Yet, the 
arrangements were conceived by minds imbued with 
the spirit of the past and became of no effect when 
tested by the changes wrought by the spirit of the 
future. The old bottles were filled with new wine and 
could not contain it; so the scheme came to naught. 

Both of these efforts to secure permanent peace 
under the rule of law failed because the unappreciated 
forces working for change and growth became stronger 
than the gradually decreasing restraint of agreements 
to maintain a fixed and immutable relation of territory 
and opportunities among the nations. It is reasonable 
to infer that a similar result must follow any attempt 
to base a system of international law upon definite and 
rigid limitations devised to meet the expediency of the 
moment. The law of life is growth, and no generation 
can prevent the growth of future generations by fixing 
in accordance with its ideas the specific conditions 

[6] 



155 

under which they are to live. As we look back, we see 
a multitude of ancient wrongs protected by the law of 
nations, naturally enough, because the law has been 
made by powers in possession. We have a vague im- 
pression that international wrongs are cured by time. 
That is not always so. There is no international 
statute of limitations. Time alone cures no wrong. 
The people to whom wrong is done may be destroyed, 
as the Turks are destroying the Armenians; or the 
wronged people may be reconciled to the new condi- 
tions, like the Saxons in England; but, for example, 
the unforgiven wrong of the Turk in Europe, and the 
unforgiven wrong of the partition of Poland, are al- 
ways forces working against the law that protects 
them. The maintenance or the redress of such wrongs 
is merely a question of relative power. The rise in 
power of Christian Europe, and the decadence of the 
Ottoman Empire, make inevitable the complete re- 
fluence of the tide which once reached the walls of 
Vienna, and even to the valley of the Loire. No hu- 
man laws or conventions could bind the forces which 
work through centuries to achieve such results. The 
futility of efforts to control such movements of man- 
kind by the short-sighted policies of the passing day 
cannot be better illustrated than by the misplaced 
energy and sacrifice of the Crimean War and the fatu- 
ous ingenuity of the Congress of Berlin which sought 
to bolster up and preserve the sovereignty of the Turk. 
As we consider how it may be possible to re-establish 
the law of nations upon a durable basis, we must real- 
ize that past experience indicates that no system of 
law which depends upon the physical partition of the 
earth dictated by the expediency of the time, no law 
which must be broken in order that living wrongs shall 

[7] 



156 

be redressed, or in order that the new ideas of the 
future may find room for growth, can be permanent. 
We should, therefore, inquire whether the poHtical 
and social conditions to which we may reasonably look 
forward after the war, the forces that are to move man- 
kind, the trend of development, will be such as to en- 
able us in our day to escape the errors of our predeces- 
sors, and to establish upon some basis of principle a 
system of international law which can be maintained 
and enforced. 

The greatest change in the conditions of national 
life during the past century has been in the advance 
and spread of democratic government, and the correla- 
tive decrease in the extent and power of autocratic and 
dynastic governments. It is impossible to regard the 
advance of democracy as being merely local or tem- 
porary. It has been the result of long-continued and 
persistent progress, varying in diflferent countries ac- 
cording to the character of the people and the nature 
of the obstacles to be overcome, but, in its nature, 
essentially the same in all countries. 

England, in her steady-going, undemonstrative way, 
has moved along from government by a king claiming 
divine right to a Commons representing popular right 
through the revolution of 1688, which established the 
nation's right to choose its king, through that civil war 
over the rights of British subjects known as the Ameri- 
can Revolution, through chartism and Catholic eman- 
cipation, the Reform Bill of 1832, the franchise exten- 
sion of 1867, the abandonment of the king's veto power 
and the establishment of the Commons' right to pass 
bills over the rejection of the House of Lords. 

181 



157 

~ France, in her own different way, with much action 
and reaction, traveled towards the same goal through 
the States General and the Constituent Assembly, 
through the Reign of Terror, and her amazing defense 
of the first Republic against all Europe, through the 
heroic surgery of Napoleon's career, the Bourbon res- 
toration, the assertion of her right to choose her own 
king in 1830, and the assertion of her right to dispense 
with a king in 1848, the plebiscite and the second Em- 
pire, the Commune and the third Republic, which has 
grown in stability and capacity for popular govern- 
ment until the steadiness and self-control and noble 
devotion of the French people under suffering and sac- 
rifice have come to be one of the amazing revelations 
of these terrible years. 

Italy, struggling out of the control of a multitude of 
petty tyrants sustained by foreign influence, estab- 
lished her newly-won unity and independence upon 
the basis of representative parliamentary government. 

Spain has regained and strengthened the constitu- 
tion of which Ferdinand VII and the Holy Alliance 
deprived her. 

Throughout the greater part of the world constitu- 
tions have become the order of the day. Switzerland, 
Belgium, Holland, Portugal, all Scandinavia, all Latin- 
America, have established their governments upon 
constitutional bases. Japan, emerging from her mili- 
tary feudalism, makes her entry into the community 
of civilized nations under a constitutional government. 
China, throwing off the domination of the Manchu, is 
striving to accustom her long-suffering and submissive 
millions to the idea of constitutional right. The great 
self-governing British Dominions, bound to the Mother 
Country only by ties of tradition and sentiment, have 

[9] 



158 

shown that free democracies can respond to moral 
forces with a splendid power of loyalty that no coer- 
cion could inspire. And now, Russia, extirpating the 
government which has been for modern times the 
typical illustration of autocracy, is engaged in estab- 
lishing the new self-control of that vast Empire upon the 
basis of universal suffrage and republican institutions. 

The political conception of control from above by 
monarchs exercising divine right is not merely dis- 
puted by philosophers and reformers ; it has faded and 
grown dim in the minds of the millions of men in the 
civilized nations, and in its place has spread through- 
out the world the political conception of constitutional 
government exercising control by authority of the 
peoples who are governed. 

The persistence and extent of this change in the 
political and social conditions of national life forbid 
the idea that it is the child of individual minds or local 
provocations or temporary causes, and distinguish it as 
one of those great and fundamental movements of the 
human mind which no power can control, and which 
run their course inevitably to the end in an unknown 
future. The existence and assured continuance of this 
process of development of democracy is the great fact 
forecasting the future conditions under which the 
effort to reinstate the law of nations is to be made. 

What is to be the effect of this change in conditions 
upon the possibility of making international law rela- 
tively permanent? In considering this question, some 
facts can be clearly perceived. 

The substitution of a democratic for an autocratic 
regime removes the chief force which in the past has 
led nations to break over and destroy the limitations 

[lO] 



159 

of law; that is, the prosecution of dynastic policies. 
Such policies in general have in view the increase of 
territory, of dominion, of power, for the ruler and the 
military class or aristocracy which surrounds the ruler 
and supports his throne. The benefit of the people 
who are ruled is only incidentally — if at all — involved. 
If we turn back to the causes which destroyed the 
peace of the world under the dispositions made by the 
Treaty of Westphalia, the mind naturally rests on the 
War of the Spanish Succession, which drenched Europe 
in blood through the first decade of the eighteenth 
century, and ended in the Treaty of Utrecht only when 
Louis XIV was reduced to exhaustion. What was 
that about? Nothing more or less than the question 
what royal house should have its power increased by 
a marriage that would ultimately enable it to control 
the territory and wield the power of Spain for its own 
aggrandizement. The interests of the people of Spain 
or the people of France or of any other country fur- 
nished no part of the motive power. What caused the 
War of the Austrian Succession a generation later, 
when Frederick (called 'The Great') marched his 
army into Silesia to wrest that province from the feeble 
hands of young Maria Theresa in flagrant violation of 
his solemn promise to protect her title under the cove- 
nants of the pragmatic sanction, and when the na- 
tions of Europe gathered like buzzards about one 
dying, eager to share in the dismemberment of the 
possessions of the House of Austria? It was the desire 
of royal princes to increase their power and glory re- 
gardless of law and justice and the welfare of peoples, 
and, incidentally, a desire by some states to prevent 
that increase, lest the same rule of spoliation might 
more readily be applied to them. 

[Ill 



i6o 

Underlying the whole age-long struggle to maintain 
the balance of power in Europe has been the assump- 
tion that increased power would be used for aggression 
and to secure further increase of power by the con- 
quest of territory and the subjection of its inhabitants; 
and the common experience of mankind under the 
autocratic system of government by divine right has 
justified the assumption. It was a perfect understand- 
ing of this characteristic of autocratic government that 
inspired the words of President Monroe's famous 
declaration: "We should consider any attempt on 
their part (the European powers) to extend their sys- 
tem to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to 
our peace and safety." 

Against the deep and settled purpose of a ruling 
family or a ruling aristocratic class to enlarge its power, 
continuing from generation to generation, usually con- 
cealed until the favorable moment for action comes, 
always justified or excused by specious pretexts, the 
advocates of peace, or justice, or humanity, or law, 
are helpless. All other causes of war can be reached. 
International misunderstandings can be explained 
away. Dislikes and suspicions can be dissipated by 
intercourse, and better knowledge, and courtesy, and 
kindness. Considerate justice can prevent real causes 
of war. Rules of action to prevent controversy may 
be agreed upon by diplomacy and conferences and con- 
gresses. Honest differences as to national rights and 
duties may be settled by arbitration, or judicial de- 
cision ; but, against a deep and persistent purpose by 
the rulers of a great nation to take away the territory 
of others, or to reduce others to subjection for their 
own aggrandizement, all these expedients are of no 
avail. The Congresses of Westphalia, of Vienna, of 

[12] 



i6i 

Berlin, and a multitude of others less conspicuous, 
have sought to curb the evil through setting limits 
upon power by treaty. They have all failed. The 
Peace Conferences at The Hague have sought to 
diminish the evil by universal agreement upon rules of 
action. The rules and the treaties have become 
'scraps of paper'. 

The progress of democracy, however, is dealing with 
the problem by destroying the type of government 
which has shown itself incapable of maintaining re- 
spect for law and justice and resisting the temptations 
of ambition; and by substituting a new form of gov- 
ernment, which in its nature is incapable of proceeding 
by the same methods, and necessarily responds to 
different motives and pursues different objects from 
the old autocratic offenders. Only when that task has 
been substantially accomplished will the advocates of 
law among nations be free from the inheritance of 
former failure. There will then be a new field open for 
a new trial, doubtless full of difficulties of its own, but 
of fair hope and possibilities of success. 

Self-governing democracies are indeed liable to com- 
mit great wrongs. The peoples who govern themselves 
frequently misunderstand their international rights, 
and ignore their international duties. They are often 
swayed by prejudice, and blinded by passion. They 
are swift to decide in their own favor the most difficult 
questions upon which they are totally ignorant. They 
are apt to applaud the jingo politician who courts 
popularity by public insult to a friendly people, and 
to condemn the statesman who modifies extreme de- 
mands through the concessions required by just con- 
sideration for the rights of others. All these faults, 

[13] 



l62 

however, are open and known to the whole world. The 
opinions and motives from which they proceed, the 
real causes of error, can be reached by reason, by 
appeal to better instincts, by public discussion, by the 
ascertainment and dissemination of the true facts. 

There are some necessary features of democratic 
self-government which tend towards the progressive 
reduction of tendencies to international wrong-doing. 
One is that democracies are absolutely dependent for 
their existence up>on the preservation of law. Autoc- 
racies can give commands and enforce them. Rules of 
action are a convenience, not a necessity for them. On 
the other hand, the only atmosphere in which a democ- 
racy can live between the danger of autocracy on one 
side and the danger of anarchy on the other is the 
atmosphere of law. Respect for law is the essential 
condition of its existence; and, as in a democracy the 
law is an expression of the people's own will, self- 
respect and personal pride and patriotism demand its 
observance. An essential distinction between democ- 
racy and autocracy is that while the government of an 
autocracy is superior to the law, the government of a 
democracy is subject to the law. The conception of 
an international law binding upon the governments of 
the world is, therefore, natural to the people of a 
democracy, and any violation of that law which they 
themselves have joined in prescribing is received with 
disapproval, if not with resentment. This is well il- 
lustrated by the attitude of the people of the separate 
states of the American Union toward the decisions of 
the Supreme Court of the United States passing upon 
the exercise of power by state governments. Physical 
force has never been used to compel conformity to 
those decisions. Yet, the democratic people of the 

[14] 



163 

United States liave answered Jefferson's contemptuous 
remark, "John Marshall has made his decision; now 
let him enforce it." -j The answer is that it is the will of 
self-governed democracy to obey the law which it 
has itself established, and the decisions of the Great 
Tribunal which declares the law controlling state 
action will be accepted and observed by common 
consent and enforced by the power of public opinion. 

Another necessary feature of democratic govern- 
ment is that the exercise of the power of popular self- 
government is a continual training of all citizens in the 
very qualities which are necessary for the maintenance 
of law between nations. Democratic government can 
not be carried on except by a people who acquire the 
habit of seeking true information about facts, of dis- 
cussing questions of right and wrong, of interest, and 
of possible consequences, who have kindly considera- 
tion for opposing opinions, and a tolerant attitude 
towards those who differ. The longer a democracy 
preserves itself through the exercise of these qualities, 
the better adapted it is to apply the same methods in 
the conduct of its international business, and the result 
is a continually increasing certainty that international 
law will be observed in a community of democratic 
nations. 

The most important difference, however, between 
the two forms of government is that democracies are 
incapable of holding or executing those sinister policies 
of ambition which are beyond the reach of argument 
and the control of law. A democracy cannot hold 
such policies, because the open and public avowal and 
discussion which must precede their adoption by a 
democracy is destructive of them; and it cannot ex- 
ecute such policies, because it uniformly lacks the kind 

[15] 



1 64 

of disciplined efficiency necessary to diplomatic and 
military affirmatives. The settled and continuous 
policies of a democracy are defensive. Nearly ninety 
years ago De Tocqueville in his survey of 'Democracy 
in America' recorded what he deemed to be a weak- 
ness of our system of government in foreign affairs. 
He said : 

"Foreign p>olitics demand scarcely any of those qualities which 
a democracy possesses, and they require, on the contrary, the 
perfect use of almost all those faculties in which it is deficient. 
Democracy is favorable to the increase of the internal resources 
of the state; it tends to diffuse a moderate independence; it pro- 
motes the growth of public spirit, and fortifies the respect which 
is entertained for law in all classes of society; and these are ad- 
vantages which only exercise an indirect influence over the re- 
lations which one people bears to another. But a democracy is 
unable to regulate the details of an important undertaking, to 
persevere in a design, and to work out its execution in the pres- 
ence of serious obstacles. It cannot combine its measures with 
secrecy, and it will not await their consequences with patience. 
These are qualities which more especially belong to an individual 
or to an aristocracy, and they are precisely the means by which 
an individual people attains to a predominant position." 

So long as foreign affairs were to continue as they 
were carried on in his day, De Tocqueville was doubt- 
less right. It is because democracies are not fitted to 
conduct foreign affairs as they were conducted in De 
Tocqueville's day that the prevalence of democracy 
throughout the world makes inevitable a change in the 
conduct of foreign affairs. Such affairs when con- 
ducted by democratic governments must necessarily 
be marked by the absence of those undertakings and 
designs, and those measures combined with secrecy, 
prosecuted with perseverance, for which he declares 
democracies to be unfit. 

[i6] 



i65 

^ This characteristic of popular governments is well 
illustrated by the hundred years of peace which we 
are all rather proud of preserving throughout the 3,000 
miles of boundary between Canada and the United 
States without fortifications or ships of war or armies. 
There have been many occasions when the tempers of 
the men on either side of the line were sorely tried. 
The disputes regarding the Northeastern Boundary, 
the Oregon Boundary, the Alaska Boundary, were 
acute; the affair of the Caroline on the Niagara River, 
the Fenian Raid upon Lake Champlain, the enforce- 
ment of the Fisheries regulations, were exasperating 
and serious, but upon neither side of the boundary did 
democracy harbor those sinister designs of aggrandize- 
ment and ambition which have characterized the 
autocratic governments of the world. On neither side 
was there suspicion of any such designs in the democ- 
racy across the border. The purpose of each nation 
was merely to stand up for its own rights, and so reason 
has always controlled, and every question has been 
settled by fair agreement, or by arbitral decision; and, 
finally, for the past eight years a permanent Inter- 
national Commission with judicial powers has disposed 
of the controversies arising between the citizens of the 
two countries along the border as unobtrusively and 
naturally as if the questions arose between citizens of 
Maryland and Virginia. Such has been the course of 
events, not because of any great design or far-seeing 
plan, but because it is the natural working of demo- 
cratic government. 

The incapacity of democracies to maintain policies 
of aggression may be fairly inferred from the extreme 
reluctance with which they incur the expense and make 
the sacrifices necessary for defense. Cherishing no 

[17] 



i66 

secret designs of aggression themselves, they find it 
difficult to believe in the existence of such designs on 
the part of other nations. Only imminent and deadly 
peril awakens them to activity. . It was this obstinate 
confidence in the peaceable intentions of all mankind 
which met Lord Roberts (honored, trusted, and be- 
loved as he was) when long before the present war he 
vainly sought to awaken the people of England to the 
danger that he saw so plainly in Germany's stupendous 
preparation for conquest. It is well known that when 
the war came France was almost upon the verge of 
diminishing her army by a reduction in the years of 
service. In our own country a great people, virile, 
fearless, and loyal, have remained indifferent to all the 
voices crying in the wilderness for preparation, be- 
cause the American people could not be made to be- 
lieve that anything was going to happen inconsistent 
with the existence everywhere of those peaceful pur- 
poses of which they themselves were conscious. 

There is a radical incompatibility between popular 
self-government and continuous military discipline, 
for military control is in itself despotic. As compared 
with military autocracies, the normal condition of 
democracies is a condition of inferior military effici- 
ency. This invariable characteristic of democracy 
leaves it no option in its treatment of autocracy. The 
two kinds of government can not live permanently 
side by side. So long as military autocracy continues, 
democracy is not safe from attacks, which are certain 
to come some time, and certain to find it unprepared. 
The conflict is inevitable and universal; and it is 
d Voutrance. To be safe, democracy must kill its en- 
emy when it can and where it can. The world can not 
be half democratic and half autocratic. It must be all 

[18] 



i67 

democratic or all Prussian. There can be no com- 
promise. If it is all Prussian, there can be no real 
international law. If it is all democratic, international 
law honored and observed may well be expected as a 
natural development of the principles which make 
democratic self-government possible. 

The democracies of the world are gathered about 
the last stronghold of autocracy, and engaged in the 
conflict thrust upon them by dynastic policy pursuing 
the ambition of rulers under claim of divine right for 
their own aggrandizement, their own glory, without 
regard to law, or justice, or faith. The issue today and 
tomorrow may seem uncertain, but the end is not un- 
certain. No one knows how soon the end will come, 
or what dreadful suffering and sacrifice may stand 
between; but the progress of the great world move- 
ment that has doomed autocracy can not be turned 
back, or defeated. 

That is the great peace movement. 

There the millions who have learned under freedom 
to hope and aspire for better things are paying the 
price that the peaceful peoples of the eartn may live in 
security under the protection of law based upon all- 
embracing justice and supreme in the community of 
nations. 



[i9l 



International Conciliation 



Published monthly by the 
American Association for International Conciliation. 
Entered as second class matter at New York, N. Y., 
Postoffice, February 23, 1909, underact of July 16, 1894 



THE PROBLEMS OF NATIONALITY 



PRO 

rmpATRiA:^^ 

PER 
?CONCORDIAAW 



THEODORE RUYSSEN 
Translated by John Mez 



SEPTEMBER, 1917 
No. 118 



AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR INTERNATIONAL CONCILIATION 

SUB-STATION 84 (4O7 WEST II7TH STREET) 

NEW YORK. CITY 



171 



THE PROBLEMS OF NATIONALITY » 

I do not want to impose upon the reader a weari- 
some chronological summary of the nationalist agita- 
tions which for a century have profoundly troubled 
European politics. It is more interesting to classify 
the nationalist movements according to the aims 
which they have sought to attain and which have 
usually determined their mode of action. 

M. Seignobos distinguishes three methods by which 
modern nations have altered their condition : separa- 
tion, agglomeration and emancipation. A fourth 
might, I think, be added, the pursuit of autonomy 
within the framework of a larger state. 

The aspiration for autonomy is the most modern of 
nationalist claims. It has appeared chiefly within the 
more advanced states, where the rule imposed upon 
the subject national minorities was not intolerable, or 
where it was obviously to the interest of these minori- 
ties not to run the risk of a war of separation, but to 
remain associated with the economic and political life 
of a powerful state. Thus Catalonia, Ireland and Fin- 
land have realized that they could hardly hope to live 
an independent life if they should separate from Spain, 
Great Britain and Russia, respectively. They would 
be content with a r6gime which allowed them to ad- 
minister for themselves their internal affairs, such as 
their schools, religion, courts of justice, public works 
and the free development of national language and 

' Parts I and II of Professor Ruyssen's paper were printed as No. 109 and 
No. 112 of International Conciliation. 

[3] 



172 

culture. Home Rule, the object of centuries of strug- 
gle, had just been granted to Ireland when the war 
suspended its operation. Finland, on the other hand, 
has had its constitutional liberties restricted by the 
irrational caprice of the Russian bureaucracy, after 
enjoying them since the liberal charter was granted 
by Alexander I in 1809. Two other nationalities en- 
closed within the Empire of the Czars, the Lithuanians 
and the Ukrainians, seem also to aspire at nothing 
more than autonomy. In Alsace-Lorraine a separatist 
movement had become very strong after the disap- 
pearance of the "protest movement," and this com- 
promise solution of so complex and painful a problem 
met with like sympathy in Germany and France up 
to the moment when war, effacing the provisions of 
the treaty of Frankfort, reawakened in the people of 
Alsace-Lorraine the hope of a solution conforming 
more closely to their secret wish. 

Separation has lifted three minor nations to the 
rank of states. Belgium, taken from the French 
Empire in 18 14, and artificially united with the King- 
dom of the Netherlands, separated from the latter in 
1 831-1832 with the aid of French armies. The equally 
artificial union of the two kingdoms of Norway and 
Sweden, subject to a common sovereign, was pacifi- 
cally dissolved in 1905, thanks to the wisdom of King 
Oscar II. This is perhaps the only case in modern 
history of a separation of states accomplished without 
violence. Hungary, finally, an independent kingdom 
until the eighteenth century, was again separated 
from Austria in 1867; the two countries retaining, 
however, a common sovereign in a form of government 
known as "Dualism." 

Agglomeration has wijthin half a century created 
[4] 



173 

two of the most important modern states: Italy and 
the German Empire. In both cases the national ele- 
ments crystallized, as it were, about the realm estab- 
lished by a military state — Piedmont in Italy, Prussia 
in Germany — thanks, too, to the prestige of victory. 

It was a process of emancipation, finally, which 
gradually detached from the Ottoman Empire the 
Christian nationalities upon which it had for four 
centuries imposed a harsh rule. The "Eastern ques- 
tion" has given rise to the most frequent and most 
violent nationalist agitations. None of these move- 
ments has succeeded in alleviating the lot of the Bal- 
kan Christians without the intervention of foreign 
countries. The emancipation of Greece in 1 828-1 829 
required the military aid of France, England and 
Russia. Rumania was freed in 1850 with the aid of 
Russia and France. It was Russia again which sup- 
ported the creation of Serbia, Montenegro and Bul- 
garia. No great power intervened in a military way 
in the last Balkan War (1912-1913) ; but a diplomatic 
conference, held in London, took in hand the settle- 
ment of Balkan affairs. The Balkan nations have, by 
the way, paid dearly for this aid. The problem of the 
Balkan nationalities would unquestionably have been 
solved long ago, if the very real desire to free the 
unfortunate peoples had not been neutralized by the 
desire to maintain a balance of power in the Orient. 
In protecting the Balkan Slavs, Russia sought to 
secure an outpost on the road to Constantinople ; but 
this ambition aroused the distrust of other powers, 
and this selfish competition gave birth to the dogma 
of the integrity of the Ottoman Empire, so cruelly 
injurious to the Christian communities of the Orient. 

We might comprise in a fifth group the nationalities 
[5] 



174 

which are divided among several states and the reali- 
ssation of whose ideals would involve at once the 
emancipation of certain groups and the agglomeration 
of the detached units into a single body. Some nation- 
alities have already achieved independence for a part 
of their number, and desire to extend its benefits to 
brothers still exiled in a foreign land. Greece lacks 
only certain islands of the Archipelago and cities on 
the Asiatic coast to accomplish her Pan-Hellenism; 
the Kingdom of Rumania asks the addition of the 
Rumanians of Transylvania, of Bukovina and of 
Bessarabia, in order to restore the old Dacia; Bul- 
garia feels herself deprived, by the Treaty of Bucha- 
rest, of the Bulgars of Macedonia, which she con- 
quered only to lose again in a few months (1913); 
Serbia dreams of expansion over the Serb peoples of 
Austria-Hungary; Italy is fighting today to add to 
the Italian fatherland the "unredeemed" country of 
the Trentino, Carniola and Trieste. For other nations, 
whose future is yet more dubious, independence and 
unity are as yet nothing but fond hopes. The Czech 
nation, still subject to Austria, will feel incomplete 
so long as the Slovaks form part of the Kingdom of 
Hungary. Will Poland, dismembered for a century 
and a half, be reconstituted as an independent king- 
dom? Will the Russian Ukraine some day become 
complete by a union with Ruthenia and Galicia, now 
subject to the Austro-Hungarian Empire? Will the 
Zionist Jews ever gather again around Jerusalem, or 
will they rebuild the Temple of Solomon somewhere 
in Uganda? 

Thus the nineteenth century, which has witnessed 
the growth of national consciousness, which has seen 
certain nationalities assume their proper place in 

161 



-75 

history, has bequeathed to the twentieth century a 
multitude of very serious national problems. We 
cannot say that the outlook for the future of the 
subject nationalities is very encouraging. When the 
history of national movements is examined more 
closely than we have here been able to do, we realize 
how full it is of bloody failures. Taken as a whole, 
these movements, when unsupported by foreign aid, 
have failed more often than they have succeeded. As 
M. Emile Bourgeois observes, "The states, not the 
nationalities, have been the true victors in the nine- 
teenth century." We might even say that the chances 
of emancipation for a nationality compelled to rely 
solely upon its own force have never been so slight as 
they are today. Tragic contrast! Whereas the chain 
which binds the individual to the state has been bit 
by bit relaxed, the control exercised over alien popu- 
lations by the central authorities is supported by 
more powerful instruments than ever before. The 
telegraph and the telephone, as aids to the police and 
the secret service, make it possible to report and re- 
press insurrectionary movements almost instantly. 
The monopoly or the close supervision of the manufac- 
ture of arms and explosives, the presence of custom- 
houses along the frontier, facilitate the control and, 
when necessary, the suppression of the trade in guns, 
revolvers and munitions; moreover, the artillery of 
the armies of the state can wipe out in an instant whole 
bands of insurgents. Conscription makes it possible 
to paralyze an organized uprising by a sudden mobili- 
zation of all men eligible for military service in the 
district. One might venture to say that the concen- 
tration of the instruments of repression in the hands 
of the modern government dooms every insurrection 

I7l 



176 

not supported from outside to a complete defeat, a 
defeat which, unfortunately, but makes harsher the 
lot of those who took part in the forlorn hope. 

This explains why the only successful national move- 
ments have been those which were effectively sup- 
ported by the arms or diplomacy of a foreign country, 
and it enables us at the same time to understand why 
the presence of dissatisfied nationalities within a 
composite state is always a source of serious trouble 
for the latter. Not only is order within the state more 
difficult to maintain, but the discontented nationali- 
ties are naturally invited to seek support for their 
cause abroad, especially in neighboring lands to which 
they are related by ties of blood and language. The 
foreign countries may be tempted on their part to 
exploit or even to incite nationalist passions in order 
to gain a pretext for intervention and to secure accom- 
plices among the enemy. Germany, Austria-Hungary, 
Russia and Turkey know what it has cost them to 
suppress peoples whose complaints have aroused indig- 
nant and effective sympathy beyond the frontier. 

But, however strong this sympathy may have been, 
we must admit that it has hardly ever sufficed to 
cause political intervention; on the contrary, it has 
more often been a "holy egotism" which has inspired 
such interventions on the most generous pretexts. 

Does not this show how tragic is the fate of nation- 
alities which are prevented by an unjust regime from 
living their own life? The instruments of force are 
out of their reach, and the paths of diplomacy are un- 
certain and perilous. And the worst of it is that, with 
the impossibility of resorting to physical force, they 
have not the only resort of the weak, law. Deprived 
as they are of all sovereignty, as we have said, they 

[8] 



177 

are not juridical persons; they have no right to enter 
complaint, no means of claiming justice; there is no 
tribunal accessible to their grievances. Whereas the 
smallest states can propose arbitration or invoke 
mediation, by appeal to the Court of the Hague, 
there exists neither court of justice, nor any other 
judicial procedure for the suppressed nationalities. 
They have neither force nor law. Some of these 
groups had hoped that the Peace Conferences of the 
Hague would admit them through some secret door; 
thus Korea sent a delegation to the Hague; but it 
was not received, nor did appeals made by groups 
from Alsace-Lorraine and Poland obtain a hearing. 

Will this continue forever? Is it not conceivable 
that national groups, without attaining sovereignty, 
should be able to get a public hearing for their appeals? 
Perhaps it will come in the future. The evolution of 
law is nowadays so rapid that no one can foresee 
what changes may take place tomorrow. In particu- 
lar, the concept of sovereignty, of which modern 
nations are so jealous, is susceptible of modification 
and attenuation in becoming subordinated to the 
idea of a Society of Nations which alone would exer- 
cise absolute sovereignty. 

It is doubtless premature to speak of internation- 
alism at a time when a dozen nations are struggling 
for existence with all the energy of despair; we will 
not even summarize a plan for the pacific constitu- 
tion of the world. And yet, studying the most obvious 
lessons of the present war, it may be guessed that the 
war has delivered a decisive blow to the prevailing 
conception which makes of large and small states 
equally absolute sovereignties/ 

[9] 



178 

On the one hand, the fate of Serbia, of Belgium and 
of Montenegro, gives cruel evidence of the fact that 
a small state cannot rely upon its own power as a 
safeguard of its political independence, when its 
existence interferes with the plans of a larger state. 
As long as war remains the final instrument for the 
settlement of international disputes, small nations 
will necessarily be compelled to ask for or to submit 
to the tutelage of the stronger. The "neutral" states 
expect the "powers" to guarantee their inviolability; 
the Balkan Slavs appeal to the Czar; Portugal and, 
in some degree, Holland, Denmark and Norway, find 
their security in England's interest in the existence 
of small states on the west coast of Europe. 

On the other hand, the European war which grew 
out of a conflict between Austria and Serbia and 
spread further and further so as to embrace more than 
one-half the inhabitants of the globe, which seriously 
affects the interests of all nations without exception, 
— this war has proved, better than sociologists could 
demonstrate it, the intimate moral and material inter- 
dependence of nations. In fact, what is actually 
taking place before our eyes is the formation of one, 
or perhaps, of two "Internationalities." The belliger- 
ents have repeatedly shared their armies and their 
material forces, their harvests, their coal, and above 
all, their credit; and at the same time, they have 
abolished or lowered, for each other, the tariff barriers. 
Without doubt, this gigantic struggle of the two war- 
ring combinations is still far from promising the 
dawn of world peace; it may be that a long period 
of wars confronts mankind. But the fact remains 
that in each of the opposed groups of powers the 
federative bond outweighs the national independence ; 

[10] 



179 

and it is unlikely that nothing durable should develop 
from this great experience. 

There are two alternatives. The Central Powers 
might be victorious. With them imperialism would 
triumph. But, however complete their victory, they 
cannot destroy the British Empire nor the Russian 
Empire. The history of tomorrow would be that of 
a rivalry between two or three huge empires; for, 
between such powerful adversaries, there would be 
no place for sovereign and independent small nations, 
or even states of moderate size; they would all have 
to seek protection with one or the other of these em- 
pires, since otherwise they would run the risk of being 
absorbed; and, however liberal the spirit of these 
federations may be, the states joining them would 
have to agree upon certain military taxes and financial 
obligations whereby their sovereignty would be very 
severely impaired. In other words, as regards a large 
part of Europe, the same thing would take place as 
has happened to the German states in consequence of 
the creation of the Zollverein and the foundation of 
the empire. By renouncing their full sovereignty in 
favor of a small number of military empires, the states 
would retain for themselves nothing but their auto- 
nomy, i. e., the right to organize their interior life 
according to their own wishes. 

This hypothesis of the victory of the Central Powers 
allied with Turkey in the defense of a barbaric mili- 
tarism, we, of course, reject. But even if it should 
happen to be realized, its success would still be pre- 
carious, for history from Alexander to Charlemagne, 
from Charles V. to Napoleon, demonstrates the insta- 
bility of empires founded on military force. 

Let us consider the alternative and assume a vic- 
[II] 



i8o 

tory of the allies. It may be predicted that the 
solidarity come of their common hardships will not 
be dissolved. The influence of the liberal "Inter- 
national" which has grouped the democratic powers 
against the military empires, has been too profound 
to disappear. In such a case, this association of 
nations which will survive after the war will unques- 
tionably take the form of a federation, and this feder- 
ation will attract to itself all such neutral nations as 
come to realize that their true interest is where the 
sword was drawn for the independence of small 
nations. 

Will this federation grow until it shall embrace all 
mankind? And will war, more abhorred than ever, 
be driven from the earth by a "United States of the 
World?" It is undoubtedly Utopian to attempt such 
an assertion. But, it can be called a strong proba- 
bility that the war will induce the modern states to 
come out of the "splendid isolation" so perilous to 
their own sovereignty, in order to be organized into 
political, economic and cultural groups. And for 
the good of these larger groups, they will have to 
sacrifice some of the attributes of sovereignty. 

It will be objected that this would imply a sover- 
eignty above that of the empire or of the federation. 
That is perfectly true. I do not think that the hour 
is near when all the nations will be absorbed into a 
united world empire or be willing to unite into one 
integral Republic of Nations. But it is very likely 
that even under a vast system of imperialism and, 
a fortiori, in a federation of nations, the old conception 
of supreme sovereignty would be subject to impor- 
tant changes. Once an empire embraces various 
nationalities which are important on account of the 

[12] 



i8i 

number of their members, the national nucleus around 
which this aggregation takes place, by this very fact, 
loses its importance. This can be observed in a 
striking manner in the Empire of Austria-Hungary 
where the German element could not prevent the 
division of the monarchy in 1867 for the benefit of 
the Magyars; and where the Czech, Polish and 
Croatian elements have been able to neutralize the 
German influence. 

The same phenomenon would repeat itself to the 
detriment of Prussia, and even of the Germanic states, 
if a victorious German Empire should succeed in 
annexing some departments of France, and Belgium, 
and, perhaps, Holland and Russian Poland. These 
conquered nationalities, to whom a deliberative vote 
would have to be given in the Reichstag and the 
Bundesrat, would be in a far more favorable position 
to claim respect for their national life, than have been 
the Danes of Schleswig, the Poles of Prussian Poland 
or the people of Alsace-Lorraine. The German Em- 
pire would inevitably become more purely federalistic 
in character, as has Austria so that the imperialistic 
tendency would finally destroy itself through its own 
expansion. This is the danger which the socialist 
minority and the League "Bund Neues Vaterland" 
have clearly realized, and which has inspired their 
energetic protests against the annexationist policy. 

Whatever, therefore, may be the issue of the con- 
flict that is dismembering the civilized world, the 
history of nationalities, is far from being at an end. 
It may be hoped that they will be the real beneficiaries 
of this cataclysm in which so much has been destroyed. 
Is it not rather significant that Poland should have 
been promised its autonomy simultaneously by both 

[13] 



I82 

the Czar and the Kaiser? Even if this pledge should 
not be kept, this homage paid by force to justice has 
a symptomatic importance. Yes, the nationalities 
will come out of the tempest stronger, because the 
spirit of nationalism, among all the other forces, like 
wealth, political institutions and even states, which 
fade away and perish, is the one force that does not 
die. This spirit will grow because of the inevitable 
weakening of the brutal powers which for centuries 
have been oppressing it. In the exhausted Europe 
of tomorrow it will be one of the most powerful forces 
of reorganization and resurrection. 

But from the preceding it follows also that the 
attainment of mere political sovereignty is by no 
means the practical end in which nationalities are 
most interested, nor is it what they have the greatest 
chance to achieve. If the future of small states is 
endangered in a world where that international 
anarchy which has given rise to the present war per- 
sists, how much more uncertain will be the fate of 
nationalities taking the risks of a fully independent 
existence? Their greatest advantage seems to con- 
sist in conforming themselves to the evolution which 
carries the world towards the devolution of the great 
composite states into distinct political units, and at 
the same time towards the organization of these com- 
munities into free federations. "National indepen- 
dence relative to, and limited by, the conditions of 
life of the rest of the universe," in a word, autonomy 
within the society of nations, is what it seems will be 
the glorious and certain fate of those nationalities 
which are stU subjected to an imperialistic yoke. 

There is a final question, which puzzled the writers 
of the Second Empire of France. It has been asked 

[14] 



183 
whether it would be advisable to welcome all the 
autonomist movements with equal sympathy, and 
to support all of them with the same devotion. It is 
often very difficult to reconcile one's conscience with 
the exigencies of an enlightened self-interest. In 
France, as I have said, there have been frequent con- 
flicts between the cautious attitude of the government 
and the great impatience of the progressive parties. 
I recall, among others, the campaigns, as futile as 
they were eloquent, undertaken on two occasions by 
the liberals in order to drag the July Monarchy and 
the Second Empire into intervention on behalf of 
Poland. The present Third Republic has more than 
once disappointed the expectations of certain nation- 
alities and their French friends. It may be asserted 
that the interventions in behalf of the Armenians 
lacked energy. It has been surprising that France has 
not made use of her title as Russia's ally to make 
official representations to the Czar for the defense of 
the Finns and the Russian Jews ; nor was it comfort- 
able to have the holding of a congress of Young Egyp- 
tians in Paris prohibited ; let us also confess that she 
has too rarely given the world an example of disinter- 
estedness. 

On the other hand, it would be childish to overlook 
the dangers to which those who assume the role of 
patrons of suppressed peoples expose themselves. The 
risk of war is usually run in an official intervention; 
and with the present system of alliances and ententes 
the whole world may be set afire by the smallest inci- 
dent. Was it not the moral protectorate of Russia 
over all the Slavs that brought her into the present 
war, and with her, nearly all Europe? What wonder, 
then, if the appeal of the oppressed nationalities and 

[15] 



1 84 

their defenders often fails because of the "holy ego- 
tism" of the great powers and the prudence of diplo- 
mats? 

Nor are these political difficulties the only ones. 
The question may arise whether the claims of a cer- 
tain nationality are well founded, and whether those 
who make themselves its representatives actually 
represent the true desires of their compatriots. 
National aspirations do not always emanate from 
the conscience of the people. Sometimes there exists 
an element of calculation and delusion. It may 
happen that a well-educated and turbulent minority 
make out of whole cloth claims which find only vague 
response among the great masses of their fellow coun- 
trymen. Who could tell, for example, the exact 
meaning of certain recent movements among the 
highest social classes in Egypt, in Persia or in India? 
How should the profound aspirations of the people be 
distinguished from the elaborate fictions of a handful 
of agitators or even of foreign agents? Have not cer- 
tain nationalities been oppressed in the very name of 
the principle of race or of language — as for example, 
Alsace-Lorraine? 

For these difficulties some simple people offer a 
solution of radical appearance. Is there doubt as to 
the national aspirations? To solve the problem, they 
say, it would suffice to organize an investigation of 
the interested parties, a plebiscite or a referendum. 

Of what avail is such a method? It is indeed tempt- 
ing because of its simplicity; it is decisive where it is 
possible, since it gives expression to the one element of 
nationality which it seems to me is more important 
than all the others : the common will of a community. 
The piethod may be applied successfully in simple 

[16] 



185 

cases: for example, in 1861 when the people of Savoy 
and of Nice were called upon by agreement of Pied- 
mont and of France to express themselves regarding 
their reattachment to France. 

But in many cases there is danger that the referen- 
dum may become a most illusory method of consulting 
a whole nation. How can an absolute freedom in 
voting be assured to the interested parties? In back- 
ward countries and countries not yet endowed with 
representative institutions, how can the possibility 
be avoided that this first vote, a very serious matter, 
may be won by surprise or by pressure? And espe- 
cially if the country is inhabited by differing ethnic 
elements, will the same right to vote be accorded to 
the old occupants of the territory as to the immi- 
grants of recent date, to the oppressors as to the 
oppressed? We would thus expose ourselves to the 
danger of perpetuating the very injustice which we 
seek to remedy. For, as I have pointed out, a nation- 
ality is not a collection of unities; it is an intimate 
alloy of spiritual elements which no arithmetic can 
express in exact figures. 

But where a plebiscite is not feasible, there are other 
methods of procedure conceivable which have the 
precise object of taking these imponderables into 
account. The surest way, I believe, would be to send 
to these nationalities commissions of inquiry whose 
members are selected from the neutral countries. 
These commissions would go about freely, increase 
the means of investigation according to their needs; 
they could interrogate the accredited representatives 
of every profession. They would have to listen to 
whomsoever wished to testify before them. As a 
matter of fact, similar commissions have already 

[17] 



1 86 

rendered excellent services, among others, that 
which was charged after the Balkan War with the 
difficult task of determining the frontiers of the new 
and ephemeral state of Albania. 

However great may be the difficulties connected 
with the determination of the legitimate frontiers of 
nationalities, and of their authentic wishes, the task 
is not insurmountable. Moreover, these difficulties 
are only a secondary aspect of the problem of nation- 
ality. The difficult part is not to distinguish the 
legitimate from the fictitious aspirations; history 
assigns a special place to the strong nationalities 
actually worthy of liberty. The essential problem is 
a problem of law. It concerns itself with the question 
whether, lacking a tribunal and a method of procedure, 
those groups capable of living their own lives shall 
remain without recourse under the domination of 
sovereign states, and whether they shall be able to 
gain access to the Society of Nations only by war. Is 
it not conceivable that some day there will come into 
being a Court of Nationalities? Would it not be 
possible to constitute that tribunal as some kind of 
delegation of the Court of the Hague with the pur- 
pose, in the interest of general peace, of hearing the 
claims of subject nationalities, and of submitting them 
to a sort of official investigation? 

These are dreams of the future, and, perhaps, chim- 
eras. To return to the oppressive reality, it is not a 
legal method to day, but it is war — the war of nation- 
alities which opens wide perspectives to nationalist 
aspirations. The Europe of tomorrow, whoever may 
be the victor, will see new countries born, and old 
nations long thought dead will emerge from their 
graves. 

[18] 



187 
Does this mean that there is nothing better than to 
let this war continue its bloody work? In fact, for a 
nation to become emancipated, two conditions besides 
war must be realized. First, it is necessary that these 
nations be worthy to exist, that they assert them- 
selves, even under persecution; and it is necessary 
that they religiously cultivate their past and unceas- 
ingly maintain their ideal of the future. Unfortunate 
those who give way, who forget, who bow down; 
their protests must be made everywhere and to the 
last moment — and they must be heard. If there is 
no court of justice to hear the cries of the suppressed, 
if the Palace at the Hague has not so much as an 
antechamber to receive the delegates of enslaved 
peoples, the public opinion of the world is a sonorous 
tribunal, always open, where the complaints of those 
who cannot plead for themselves should be unceasingly 
voiced by their defenders. 

It is a matter of honor to the modern liberal nations 
that they have given refuge to the representatives of 
unfortunate nationalities. Paris, London, Brussels, 
Geneva, Lausanne, New York, Boston, have been, for 
a century, the chosen shelters of banished and volun- 
tary exiles. Even when the governments did not or 
could not act, the countries of liberty have always 
accorded to the martyred populations the support 
of their protests ; it is true, an imperfect support, but 
not ineffectual ; for, aside from comforting the victims, 
it keeps before the public questions which from the 
viewpoint of justice, it would be dangerous to allow 
to be silenced and forgotten. Any inquity committed 
at the expense of a country is thus subjected to 
revision just as are the judiciary errors of a court, as 

[19] 



i88 

long as there Is a conscience which demands that the 
question be taken up. 

The general leagues that have undertaken the 
defense of subject populations aspiring to the life of a 
nation, the special committees constituted for the 
defense of this or that nationality, the offices, the 
periodicals which make it their mission to keep the 
public informed as to these great problems, have all 
done very useful work, although the immediate results 
have often been rather discouraging. 

How could, in view of all these endeavors, the 
"League of the Rights of Man and of Citizens" fail 
to take a part? Well, it has taken a part already; 
and it will continue to do so. It is following the tra- 
ditions of its great ancestors, both the Constitution- 
alists and Conventionalists who believed that by 
defining the Rights of "Citizen" they could also define 
those of "Man"; and who for a moment held the 
generous hope of extending the benefits of the Revo- 
lution to all the peoples of the earth. She also con- 
tinues the work of the good citizen whose powerful 
personality has given its definitive character to the 
activities of the league. Nobody has better known the 
sufferings of the martyr-people than Francis de 
Gressense, in that Europe and that Orient which he 
had searched in its most terrible depths, its violent 
and painful history ; nobody has taken up with more 
energy the defense of the Finlanders, the Armenians, 
the Jews of Russia. It suffices, at the conclusion of 
this study, devoted to the defense of nationalities, to 
recall this great name which in itself is a maxim of 
action. 



[20] 



International Conciliation 

Published monthly by the 
American Association for International Conciliation. 
Entered as second class matter at New York, N. Y., 
Postoffice, February 23, 1909, under act of July 16, 1894 



OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS 
LOOKING TOWARD PEACE 

Series No. Ill 




OCTOBER, 1917 
No. 119 



AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR INTERNATIONAL CONCILIATION 

SUB-STATION 84 (407 WEST II7TH STREET) 

NEW YORK CITY 



SOURCES 

I. Message from his Holiness Benedictus XV, Pope, August i, 1917 — Official 
Bulletin, Washington, August 17, 1917 

II. Reply on Behalf of the United States, August 27, 1917 — Official Bulletin, 
Washington, August 29, 1917 

III. The German Reply — New York Times, September 23, 1917 

IV. The Austrian Reply — New York Times, September 22, 1917 



191 



I 

Message from His Holiness Benedictus XV, Pope 

To the rulers of the belligerent peoples: 

From the beginning of our pontificate, in the midst of the horrors 
of the awful war let loose on Europe, we have had of all things three 
in mind: To maintain perfect impartiality toward all the belligerents 
as becomes him who is the common father and loves all his children 
with equal affection; continually to endeavor to do them all as much 
good as possible, without exception of person, without distinction of 
nationality or reUgion, as is dictated to us by the universal law of 
charity as well as by the supreme spiritual charge with which we have 
been intrusted by Christ; finally, as also required by our mission of 
peace, to omit nothing, as far as it lay in our power, that could con- 
tribute to expedite the end of these calamities by endeavoring to 
bring the peoples and their rulers to more moderate resolutions, to 
the serene deliberation of peace, of a 'just and lasting' peace. 

Whoever has watched our endeavors in these three grievous years 
that have just elapsed could easily see that while we remjiined ever 
true to our resolution of absolute impartiality and beneficent action, 
we never ceased to urge the belligerent peoples and Governments 
again to be brothers, although all that we did to reach this very noble 
goal was not made public. 

About the end of the first year of the war we addressed to the con- 
tending nations the most earnest exhortations and in addition pointed 
to the path that would lead to a stable peace honorable to all. Un- 
fortunately our appeal was not heeded and the war was fiercely car- 
ried on for two years more with all its horrors. It became even more 
cruel and spread over land and sea and even to the air, and desolation 
and death were seen to fall upon defenseless cities, peaceful villages, 
and their innocent populations. And now no one can imagine how 
much the general suffering would increase and become worse if other 
months or, still worse, other years were added to this sanguinary 
triennium. Is this civilized world to be turned into a field of death, 
and is Europe, so glorious and flourishing, to rush, as carried by a 
universal folly, to the abyss and take a hand in its own suicide? 

In so distressing a situation, in the presence of so grave a menace, 
we who have no personal political aim, who listen to the suggestions 

[5] 



192 

or interests of none of the belligerents, but are solely actuated by the 
sense of our supreme duty as the common father of the faithful, by 
the solicitations of our children who implore our intervention and 
peace-bearing word, uttering the very voice of humanity and reason, 
we again call for peace and we renew a pressing appeal to those who 
have in their hands the destinies of the nations. But no longer con- 
fining ourselves to general terms, as we were led to do by circum- 
stances in the past, we will now come to more concrete and practical 
proposals and invite the Governments of the belligerent peoples to 
arrive at an agreement on the following points, which seem to offer 
the base of a just and lasting peace, leaving it with them to make 
them more precise and complete: 

First, the fundamental point must be that the material force of 
arms give way to the moral force of right, whence a just agreement 
of all upon the simultaneous and reciprocal decrease of armaments, 
according to rules and guarantees to be established, in the necessary 
and sufficient measure for the maintenance of public order in every 
State; then, taking the place of arms, the institution of arbitration, 
with its high pacifying function, according to rules to be drawn in 
concert and under sanctions to be determined against any State 
which would decline either to refer international questions to arbi- 
tration or to accept its awards. 

When supremacy of right is thus established, let every obstacle 
to ways of communication of the peoples be removed by insuring, 
through rules to be also determined, the true freedom and community 
of the seas, which, on the one hand, would eliminate many causes 
of conflict and, on the other hand, would open to all new sources of 
prosperity and progress. 

As for the damages to be repaid and the cost of the war, we see no 
other way of solving the question than by setting up the general 
principle of entire and reciprocal condonation which would be justi- 
fied by the immense benefit to be derived from disarmament, all the 
more as one could not understand that such carnage could go on for 
mere economic reasons. If certain particular reeisons stand against 
this in certain cases, let them be weighed in justice and equity. 

But these specific agreements, with the immense advantages that 
flow from them, are not possible unless territory now occupied is 
reciprocally restituted. Therefore, on the part of Germany, total 
evacuation of Belgium, with guarantees of its entire political, mili- 
tary, and economic independence toward any power whatever; 
evacuation also of the French territory; on the part of the other 
belligerents a similar restitution of the German colonies. 

As regards territorial questions as, for instance, those that are dis- 
puted by Italy and Austria, by Germany and France, there is reason 
to hope that in consideration of the immense advantages of durable 

[61 



193 

peace with disarmament, the contending parties will examine in a 
conciliatory spirit, taking into account as far as is just and possible, 
as we have said formerly, the aspirations of the population, and if 
occasion arises adjusting private interests to the general good of the 
great human society. 

The same spirit of equity and justice must guide the examination 
of the other territorial and political questions, notably those relative 
to Armenia, the Balkan States, and the territories forming part of 
the old Kingdom of Poland, for which, in particular, its noble histori- 
cal traditions and the suffering particularly undergone during the 
present war, must win, with justice, the sympathies of the nations. 

These, we believe, are the main bases upon which must rest the 
future reorganization of the peoples. They are such as to make the 
recurrence of such conflicts impossible and open the way for the solu- 
tion of the economic question which is so important for the future 
and the material welfare of all of the belligerent states. And so, in 
presenting them to you who, at this tragic hour, guide the destinies 
of the belligerent nations, we indulge a gratifying hope that they 
will be accepted and that we shall thus see an early termination of the 
terrible struggle which has more and more the appearance of a useless 
massacre. Everybody acknowledges on the other hand that on both 
sides the honor of arms is safe. Do not, then, turn a deaf ear to our 
prayer, accept the paternal invitation which we extend to you in the 
name of the Divine Redeemer, Prince of Peace. Bear in mind your 
very grave responsibility to God and man; on your decision depend 
the quiet and joy of numberless families, the lives of thousands of 
young men, the happiness, in a word, of the peoples to whom it is 
your imperative duty to secure this boon. May the Lord inspire 
you with decisions conformable to His very holy will. May Heaven 
grant that in winning the applause of your contemporaries you will 
also earn from the future generations the great titles of pacificators. 

As for us, closely united in prayer and penitence with all the faiths 
ful souls who yearn for peace, we implore for you the divine spirit, 
enlightenment, and guidance. Given at the Vatican, August i, 191 7, 

Benedictus P. M. XV 



[7I 



194 



II 

Reply on Behalf of the United States 

August 27, 191 7 
To His Holiness Benedictus XV, Pope. 

In acknowledgment of the communication of Your Holiness to the 
belligerent peoples, dated August i, 191 7, the President of the 
United States requests me to transmit the following reply: 

Every heart that has not been blinded and hardened by this terri- 
ble war must be touched by this moving appeal of His Holiness the 
Pope, must feel the dignity and force of the humane and generous 
motives which prompted it, and must fervently wish that we might 
take the path of peace he so persuasively points out. But it would 
be folly to take it if it does not in fact lead to the goal he proposes. 
Our response must be based upon the stern facts and upon nothing 
else. It is not a mere cessation of arms he desires; it is a stable and 
enduring peace. This agony must not be gone through with again, 
and it must be a matter of very sober judgment what will insure us 
against it. 

His HoUness in substance proposes that we return to the status 
quo ante bellum, and that then there be a general condonation, 
disarmament, and a concert of nations based upon an acceptance of 
the principle of arbitration; that by a similar concert freedom of the 
seas be established; and that the territorial claims of France and 
Italy, the perplexing problems of the Balkan States, and the restitu- 
tion of Poland be left to such conciliatory adjustments as may be pos- 
sible in the new temper of such a peace, due regard being paid to the 
aspirations of the peoples whose political fortunes and affiliations 
will be involved. 

It is manifest that no part of this program can be successfully 
carried out unless the restitution of the status quo ante furnishes a 
firm and satisfactory basis for it. The object of this war is to deliver 
the free peoples of the world from the menace and the actual power 
of a vast military estabUshment controlled by an irresponsible gov- 
ernment which, having secretly planned to dominate the world, pro- 
ceeded to carry the plan out without regard either to the sacred obli- 
gations of treaty or the long-established practices and long-cherished 

181 



195 

principles of international action and honor; which chose its own 
time for the war; delivered its blow fiercely and suddenly; stopped 
at no barrier either of law or of mercy; swept a whole continent 
within the tide of blood — not the blood of soldiers only, but the blood 
of innocent women and children also and of the helpless poor; and 
now stands balked but not defeated, the enemy of four-fifths of the 
world. This power is not the German people. It is the ruthless 
master-of the German people. It is no business of ours how that great 
people came under its control or submitted with temporary zest to 
the domination of its purpose; but it is our business to see to it that 
the history of the rest of the world is no longer left to its handling. 

To deal with such a power by way of peace upon the plan pro- 
posed by His Holiness the Pope would, so far as we can see, involve 
a recuperation of its strength and a renewal of its policy; would make 
it necessary to create a permanent hostile combination of nations 
against the German people, who are its instruments; and would 
result in abandoning the new-born Russia to the intrigue, the mani- 
fold subtle interference, and the certain counter-revolution which 
would be attempted by all the malign influences to which the German 
Government has of late accustomed the world. Can peace be based 
upon a restitution of its power or upon any word of honor it could 
pledge in a treaty of settlement and accommodation? 

Responsible statesmen must now everywhere see, if they never saw 
before, that no peace can rest securely upon political or economic 
restrictions meant to benefit some nations and cripple or embarrass 
others, upon vindictive action of any sort, or any kind of revenge or 
deliberate injury. The American people have suffered intolerable 
wrongs at the hands of the Imperial German Government, but they 
desire no reprisal upon the German people, who have themselves suf- 
fered all things in this war, which they did not choose. They believe 
that peace should rest upon the rights of peoples, not the rights of 
governments — the rights of peoples great or small, weak or powerful — 
their equal right to freedom and security and self-government and to 
a participation upon fair terms in the economic opportunities of the 
world, the German people of course included if they will accept 
equality and not seek domination. 

The test, therefore, of every plan of peace is this: Is it based upon 
the faith of all the peoples involved or merely upon the word of an 
ambitious and intriguing government, on the one hand, and of a 
group of free peoples, on the other? This is a test which goes to the 
root of the matter; and it is the test which must be applied. 

The purposes of the United States in this war are known to the 
whole world, to every people to whom the truth has been permitted 
to come. They do not need to be stated again. We seek no material 
advantage of any kind. We believe that the intolerable wrongs 

[9] 



196 

done in this war by the furious and brutal power of the Imperial Ger- 
man Government ought to be repaired, but not at the expense of the 
sovereignty of any people — rather a vindication of the sovereignty 
both of those that are weak and of those that are strong. Punitive 
damages, the dismemberment of empires, the establishment of selfish 
and exclusive economic leagues, we deem inexpedient and in the end 
worse than futile, no proper basis for a peace of any kind, least of 
all for an enduring peace. That must be based upon justice and 
fairness and the common rights of mankind. 

We can not take the word of the present rulers of Germany as a 
guarantee of anything that is to endure, unless explicitly supported 
by such conclusive evidence of the will and purpose of the German 
people themselves as the other peoples of the world would be justi- 
fied in accepting. Without such guarantees treaties of settlement, 
agreements for disarmament, covenants to set up arbitration in the 
place of force, territorial adjustments, reconstitutions of small 
nations, if made with the German Government, no man, no nation 
could now depend on. We must await some new evidence of the 
purposes of the great peoples of the Central Powers. God grant it 
may be given soon and in a way to restore the confidence of all 
peoples everywhere in the faith of nations and the possibility of a 
covenanted peace. 

Robert Lansing, 
Secretary of State of the United States of America 



[10] 



197 



III 

The German Reply 

(As transmitted by Chancellor Michaelis to Cardinal Gasparri) 

Herr Cardinal: Your Eminence has been good enough, together 
with your letter of August 2, to transmit to the Kaiser and King, my 
most gracious master, the note of his Holiness the Pope, in which 
his Holiness, filled with grief at the devastations of the world war, 
makes an emphatic peace appeal to the heads of the belligerent 
peoples. The Kaiser-King has deigned to acquaint me with your 
Eminence's letter and to intrust the reply to me. 

His Majesty has been following for a considerable time with high 
respect and sincere gratitude his Holiness's efforts, in a spirit of true 
impartiality, to alleviate as far as possible the sufferings of the war and 
to hasten the end of hostilities. The Kaiser sees in the latest step of 
his Holiness fresh proof of his noble and humane feelings, and cher- 
ishes a lively desire that, for the benefit of the entire world, the Papal 
appeal may meet with success. 

The effort of Pope Benedict is to pave the way to an understanding 
among all peoples, and might more surely reckon on a sympathetic 
reception and the whole-hearted support from his Majesty, seeing 
that the Kaiser since taking over the Government has regarded it 
as his principal and most sacred task to preserve the blessings of 
peace for the German people and the world. 

In his first speech from the throne at the opening of the German 
Reichstag on June 25, 1888, the Kaiser promised that his love of the 
German Army and his position toward it should never lead him into 
temptation to cut short the benefits of peace unless war were a neces- 
sity, forced upon us by an attack on the empire or its allies. The 
German Army should safeguard peace for us, and should peace, 
nevertheless, be broken, it would be in a position to win it with honor. 
The Kaiser has, by his acts, fulfilled the promise he then made in 
twenty-six years of happy rule, despite provocations and temptations. 

In the crisis which led to the present world conflagration his 
Majesty's efforts were up to the last moment directed toward settling 
the conflict by peaceful means. After the war had broken out, against 
his wish and desire, the Kaiser, in conjunction with his high allies, 
was the first solemnly to declare his readiness to enter into peace 
negotiations. The German people support his Majesty in his keen 
desire for peace. 

[Ill 



198 

Germany sought within her national frontier the free development 
of her spiritual and material possessions, and outside the imperizil 
territory unhindered competition with nations enjoying equal rights 
and equal esteem. The free play of forces in the world in peaceable 
wrestling with one another would lead to the highest perfecting of 
the noblest human possessions. A disastrous concatenation of events 
in the year 1914 absolutely broke off all hopeful course of develop- 
ment and transformed Europe into a bloody battle arena. 

Appreciating the importance of his Holiness's declaration, the Im- 
perial Government has not failed to submit the suggestion contained 
therein to earnest and scrupulous examination. Special measures, 
which the Government has taken in closest contact with representa- 
tives of the German people, for discussing and answering the ques- 
tions raised prove how earnestly it desires, in accordance with his 
Holiness's desires, and the peace resolution of the Reichstag on July 
19, to find a practical basis for a just and lasting peace. 

The Imperial Government greets with special sympathy the lead- 
ing idea of the peace appeal wherein his Holiness clearly expresses 
the conviction that in the future the material power of arms must be 
superseded by the moral power of right. We are also convinced that 
the sick body of human society can only be healed by fortifying its 
moral strength of right. From this would follow, according to his 
Holiness's view, the simultaneous diminution of the armed forces 
of all States and the institution of obligatory arbitration for inter- 
national disputes. 

We share his Holiness's view that definite rules and a certain safe- 
guard for a simultaneous and reciprocal limitation of armaments on 
land, on sea, and in the air, as well as for the true freedom of the com- 
munity and high seas, are the things in treating which — the new spirit 
that in the future should prevail in international relations — should 
find first hopeful expression. The task would then of itself arise to 
decide international differences of opinion, not by the use of ju-med 
forces, but by peaceful methods, especially by arbitration, whose 
high peace-producing effect we together with his Holiness fully 
recognize. 

The Imperial Government will in this respect support every pro- 
posal compatible with the vital interest of the German Empire and 
people. 

Germany, owing to her geographical situation and economic re- 
quirements, has to rely on peaceful intercourse with her neighbors 
and with distant countries. No people, therefore, has more reason 
than the German people to wish that instead of universal hatred and 
battle, a conciliatory fraternal spirit should prevail between nations. 

If the nations are guided by this spirit it will be recognized to their 
advantage that the important thing is to lay more stress upon what 

[12] 



199 

unites them in their relations. They will also succeed in settling 
individual points of conflict which are still undecided, in such a way 
that conditions of existence will be created which will be satisfactory 
to every nation, and thereby a repetition of this great world catas- 
trophe would appear impossible. 

Only on this condition can a lasting peace be founded which would 
promote an intellectual rapprochement and a return to the economic 
prosperity of human society. 

This serious and sincere conviction encourages our confidence that 
our enemies also may see a suitable basis in the ideas submitted by 
his Holiness for approaching nearer to the preparation of future peace 
under conditions corresponding to a spirit of reasonableness and to 
the situation in Europe. 



U$] 



200 



IV 

The Austrian Reply 

Holy Father: With due veneration and deep emotion we take 
cognizance of the new representations which your Holiness, in ful- 
fillmept of the holy office intrusted to you by God, makes to us and 
the heads of the other belligerent States, with the noble intention of 
leading the heavily tried nations to a unity that will restore peace to 
them. 

With a thankful heart we receive this fresh gift of fatherly care 
which you. Holy Father, always bestow on all peoples without dis- 
tinction, and from the depth of our heart we greet the moving ex- 
hortation which your Holiness has addressed to the Governments of 
the belligerent peoples. 

During this cruel war we have always looked up to your Holi- 
ness as to the highest personage, who, in virtue of his mission, which 
reaches beyond earthly things, and, thanks to the high conception of 
his duties laid upon him, stands high above the belligerent peoples, 
and who, inaccessible to all influence, was able to find a way which 
may lead to the realization of our own desire for peace, lasting and 
honorable for all parties. 

Since ascending the throne of our ancestors, and fully conscious 
of the responsibility which we bear before God and men for the fate 
of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, we have never lost sight of the 
high aim of restoring to our peoples, as speedily as possible, the 
blessings of peace. Soon after our accession to the throne it was 
vouchsafed to us, in common with our allies, to undertake a step 
which had been considered and prepared by our exalted predecessor, 
Francis Joseph, to pave the way for a lasting and honorable peace. 

We gave expression to this desire in a speech from the throne 
delivered at the opening of the Austrian Reichstag, thereby showing 
that we are striving after a peace that shall free the future Ufe of 
the nation from rancor and a thirst for revenge, and that shall se- 
cure them for generations to come from the employment of armed 
forces. Our joint Government has in the meantime not failed in re- 
peated and emphatic declarations, which could be heard by all the 
world, to give expression to our own will and that of the Austro- 
HungEU'ian peoples to prepare an end to bloodshed by a peace such 
as your Holiness has in mind. 

[I4l 



20I 

Happy in the thought that our desires from the first were directed 
toward the same object which your Holiness today characterizes 
as one we should strive for, we have taken into close consideration 
the concrete and practical suggestions of your Holiness and have 
come to the following conclusions: 

With deep-rooted conviction we agree to the leading idea of 
your Holiness that the future arrangement of the world must be 
based on the elimination of armed forces and on the moral force of 
right and on the rule of international justice and legality. 

We, too, are imbued with the hope that a strengthening of the 
sense of right would morally regenerate humanity. We support, 
therefore, your Holiness's view that the negotiations between the 
belligerents should and could lead to an understanding by which, 
with the creation of appropriate guarantees, armaments on land and 
sea and in the air might be reduced simultaneously, reciprocally and 
gradually to a fixed limit, and whereby the high seas, which rightly 
belong to all the nations of the earth, may be freed from domination 
or paramountcy, and be opened equally for the use of all. 

Fully conscious of the importance of the promotion of peace on 
the method proposed by your Holiness, namely, to submit interna- 
tional disputes to compulsory arbitration, we are also prepared to 
enter into negotiations regarding this proposal. 

If, as we most heartily desire, agreements should be arrived at 
between the belligerents which would realize this sublime idea and 
thereby give security to the Austro-Hungarian monarchy for its 
unhampered future development, it can then not be difficult to find 
a satisfactory solution of the other questions which still remain to be 
settled between the belligerents in a spirit of justice and of a rea- 
sonable consideration of the conditions for existence of both parties. 

If the nations of the earth were to enter, with a desirable peace, 
into negotiations with one another in the sense of your Holiness's 
proposals, then peace could blossom forth from them. The nations 
could attain complete freedom of movement on the high seas, heavy 
material burdens could be taken from them, and new sources of 
prosperity opened to them. 

Guided by a spirit of moderation and conciliation, we see in the 
proposals of your Holiness a suitable basis for initiating negotia- 
tions with a view to preparing a peace, just to all and lasting, and 
we earnestly hope our present enemies may be animated by the 
same ideas. In his spirit we beg that the Almighty may bless the 
work of peace begun by your Holiness. 



[I5l 



International Conciliation 

Published monthly by the 
American Association for International Conciliation. 
Entered as second class matter at New York, N. Y., 
PostoflSce, February 23, 1909. under act of July 16, 1894 



THE UNITED STATES AND GREAT BRITAIN 
By Walter H. Page 

THE BRITISH COMMONWEALTH 

OF NATIONS 
By Lieutenant-General J. C. Smuts 

AMERICA AND FREEDOM 
By Viscount Grey of Falloden 




NOVEMBER, 1917 

No. 120 



AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR INTERNATIONAL CONCILIATION 

SUB-STATION 84 (407 WEST II7TH STREET) 

NEW YORK CITY 



205 



THE UNITED STATES AND GREAT BRITAIN 

Speech of the Hon. Walter H. Page, Ambassador 
from the United States to Great Britain, made in 
the Guild Hall, Plymouth, England, on the Anni- 
versary of the Beginning of the War, August 4,1917 

Mr. Mayor, Ladies and Gentlemen: The honour you pay me 
by this generous reception moves me profoundly. I am glad to stand 
in this town and, at the beginning of this new era in the life of our 
race, to pledge the unwavering fellowship of free men across the sea — 
the sea that once separated us but that now unites us. I pay homage 
here to the immortal memory of your great masters of the sea and 
especially of those sturdy men who sailed from this harbour nearly 300 
years ago, and carried to the making of our New World that love of 
freedom which now impels us to come to the defence of the imperilled 
freedom of the world. The idealism of the Republic rests on their 
unconquerable spirit which we keep yet, thank God, when a high 
duty calls us. In memory of them, and in the comradeship of this 
righteous war, whose awful shadow will darken the world till we win 
it, I greet you as kinsmen. 

We are met on the most tragic anniversary in history. It is not 
a day to celebrate for its own sake. What we shall be glad to cele- 
brate will be the day of victory, and its anniversary ever afterwards. 
But, before we achieve victory, it is fit that we meet on this dire 
anniversary to fortify our purpose, if it need fortifying; to pledge 
ourselves that the brave men who have died shall not have died in 
vain; and to re-assert our purpose to finish the task even if it exhaust 
the vast resources and take the heaviest toll of the valiant lives of 
the Allies in Europe and of the Republic across the sea. For what 
would the future of the human race be worth if the deliberate and 
calculated barbarism of our enemies overrun the earth? The supreme 
gift of free government, which this brave island gave to the world 
and to which all free lands chiefly owe their freedom, would be swept 
away. Let the darkness of death overtake us now rather than the 
darkness of tyranny should sweep over all free lands. 

We do not need to review these terrible three years. Everyone of 
us is constantly doing that whether he would or not. For the war 

[3] 



206 

has shut most preceding experiences and memories of normal and 
joyful tasks out of our minds. But there are several facts that wc 
may profitably recall. 

The chief one is the fact that the war was thrust on us. Not only 
did the Allied Nations not begin it; they did nothing to provoke it. 
They did all they could to prevent it. Documentary proof of this is 
abundant, and has been so clearly cited that I shall not weary you 
with another recital of it. 

Another fact is the persistent denial by German public men and 
soldiers that the war was of their making. This is important not 
only as a measure of their moral qualities, but as an indication of 
their method of retreat. They will appeal to the pity of the world 
that they set out to subdue. 

It is surely proper for us on this tragic anniversary to ponder on 
these large facts while we strengthen our resolve to save ourselves 
and the world from a degrading servitude that would be worse than 
death. After the war is ended and we can look back calmly at these 
years, they will, I imagine, stand out in our memory, in certain moods, 
as a horrible nightmare, in certain other moods as a time of heroic 
cleansing of the earth of an ancient and deadly malady. Military 
despotisms have ever been one of the greatest evils of human society. 
We have now learned, that with modern physical progress they are 
become far more dangerous and far more loathsome than they were 
in simpler times. 

But after these general reflections on the nature of the great con- 
flict, I think it more proper that I should speak, in this place of sacred 
historic associations for so long a part of American life, rather of one 
great by-product of the war, of one happy incident which may well 
turn out to be the best result of it : I mean the closer coming-together 
of the two great English-speaking parts of the world. 

No American can come to Plymouth without thinking of the going 
of the English from these shores to the new land where they set up 
a new freedom and laid the foundations of the most prosperous and 
hopeful community on the earth. In the course of time those New 
World communities fell apart from political allegiance to the Old 
Land. But they fell apart from the Old Land only in political alle- 
giance. If we had need to discuss this political divergence, I should 
maintain that political separation was as well for you as it was nec- 
essary for us, and that by reason of it human freedom was further 
advanced, and a new chapter in free men's growth opened throughout 
the English-speaking world. 

The American Revolution was a civil war fought on each side by 
men of the same race. And this civil war was fought in the Colonial 
Assemblies, and in Parliament as well as on the battlefields in America, 
and it was won in the Colonial Assemblies and in Parliament as well 

■[4l 



207 

as on the battlefields in America; for from that day on you have 
regarded Colonies as free and equal communities with the Mother 
Country. This civil war naturally left a trail of distrust, the greater 
because of the long distance between us by sail. But, when the first 
steamship came over the ocean, and still more when the cable bound 
us together, a new^ union began to come about because these elimina- 
tions of distance set the tide of feeling in the natural course laid out 
by kinship and common aims. 

But in the meantime the American community had developed in 
its own way, and our life had become more and more different from 
life in this Kingdom. We became so fixed and so different in our 
conventions and ways of life that we could not easily come back to 
your conventions and ways of life if we would. 

In fact there is no other test that the British people have had — no 
test that any people has ever had — which proved its great qualities 
so well as the British settlement and management of America. Here 
were men in a new land cut off from close contact with their kins- 
men at home, who took their political affairs in their own hands, and 
thereafter were without guidance or support from the mother coun- 
try. How did the race stand such a test? No other migrating race 
has stood such a test so well; and those first English colonists have 
now grown, by natural increase and by numerous adoptions, into a 
people which today includes more English-speaking white men than 
the whole British Empire. They have not only out-grown in numbers 
all the British elsewhere; but they have kept what may be called the 
faith of the race. They have kept the racial and national character- 
istics. They have kept British law, British freedom, British parlia- 
ments, British character. I am not boasting, ladies and gentlemen, 
of my own land; I am only reciting how your race has endured and 
survived separation from you and your land. Our foundations were 
British; our political structure is British with variations; our social 
structure is British — also with important variations; more important 
still, our standards of character and of honour and of duty are your 
standards; and life and freedom have the same meaning to us that 
they have to you. These are the essential things; and in these we 
have always been one. Our admixture of races to make a richer 
American stock is similar to the admixture of races that went, in an 
earlier time, to the making of a richer British stock on these Islands. 
In most of our steps forward in human advancement we have but 
repeated in a larger land and under new conditions the steps that you 
took in-these Islands in the struggling days of the making of our race 
and in the beginnings of its institutions. 

During the long period of sailing craft and before the telegraph, 
we lost no racial characteristics. We lost only close personal con- 
tact. We lost personal acquaintance. We even had sharp differences 

[Si 



208 

of opinion, which in fact is a quality of our race. But, if you review 
our history carefully, you will discover, I think, that no difference 
that ever arose between us was ever half as important as it got credit 
for being at the time. Most of them were superficial differences. 
Such as were more serious found settlement — once again by war and 
many times by patient study that led to understanding. And when 
they were settled, they were settled. That has always been our way 
with one another. 

We were, under the influence of swift communication and travel, 
already losing our long isolation, and you were relaxing your mis- 
judgments when our Civil War again proved that we were made of 
the same stuff that had made the race on this Island; and we swung 
into a period of even closer understanding. 

And now the day of our supreme test and of the heroic mood is 
come. There is now a race-reason why we should have a complete 
understanding; and such a complete understanding is come. 

You will, I hope, pardon me for even alluding to our old differences; 
for they are now long forgotten far-off things. I allude to them only to 
clear the way. It is not the going of the Pilgrims nor the falling 
away of the colonies that we now celebrate, but rather the coming 
of American warships which symbolize the new union of the two 
peoples that this fierce assault on our civilization has revealed afresh. 
Politically two peoples, in all high aims and in the love of freedom 
we are one, and must now remain at one forever. 

This war has swept away incidental differences between us as a 
harrow smooths a field. Not only are our warships come — our troop 
ships, too, have landed an army on the soil of our brave Ally where 
the enemy yet keeps the wavering line of an invader; and more 
warships will come and more troop ships, million-laden if need be, till 
that line is forever broken and till the submarines are withdrawn or 
are forever submerged. There is coming the greatest victory for free 
government that was ever won, and the day of this victory which we 
are both fighting for may turn out to be the most important date in 
our history or perhaps in all history. 

And the necessity to win it has cleared the air as no other event 
in modern times has cleared it; and but for the millions of brave lives 
that are gone out, this clearing of the air would richly repay all that 
the war will cost. 

It has revealed the future of the world to us not as conquerors but 
as preservers of its peace. The free peace-loving nations will have 
no more of this colossal armed and ordered murder and pillage; and 
no combination of the peace-loving nations can be made effective 
without both branches of the English-speaking peoples. This Empire 
and the Great Republic must, then, be the main guardians of civiliza- 
tion hereafter, the conscious and leagued guardians of the world. 

161 



209 

It is this that tiie war has revealed to us. It is not a task of our 
seeking. But it is a task that we will, with the other free peoples of 
the world, gladly undertake. 

To undertake it, our comradeship must become perpetual, and our 
task is to see to it that it be not broken nor even strained — our task 
and our children's task after us. 

It is, of course, the function of governments to keep friendly 
nations in proper relations to one another; and both our nations 
fortunately can and do trust both our governments to do that. 
Through all the difficulties and differences that arose between our 
two Governments during the early stages of the war, there was no 
rupture of friendly dealing. When the full story of these years of 
delicate controversies comes to be told, it will be seen that mutual 
toleration and forbearance played a far larger part than a rigid insis- 
tence on disputed points. Such differences as we had were differ- 
ences between friends. I am sure that I may say with propriety that 
the two distinguished British statesmen who were His Majesty's 
Chief Foreign Secretaries during this period showed a spirit in their 
dealings with the United States Government that put the whole 
English-speaking world in their debt; and I am sure that they would 
say the same for the Government of the United States. 

But while fortunately our two Governments may be fully trusted 
to bind us together, governments come and governments go. In 
free countries they are as a rule short-lived; and they are always and 
properly, even in the conduct of foreign relations, the servants of 
public opinion if public opinion strongly assert itself. Far more 
important, then, than any particular Government is the temper and 
action of public opinion in free countries such as ours. The complete 
and permanent union in all large aims of our two nations, generation 
after generation, must, therefore, rest on the broad base of a friendly 
and informed public opinion in both countries. 

If this argument be sound it leads us — every one of us — to a high 
duty. The lasting friendship of two democratic nations must rest 
on the sympathetic knowledge that the people of each nation have 
of the other — even upon the personal friendships of large numbers 
of people one with another. Personal friendships make a friendly 
public opinion. It is, therefore, the highest political duty that Britons 
and Americans can have to build up personal knowledge of one 
another and personal friendships. But we do not get far so long as 
we leave the subject expressed in these general terms. We must make 
a definite personal application of this duty. I say, then, that it is 
your duty to learn all you can about the United States — about the 
country, the people, their institutions, their occupations, their aims, 
and to make the acquaintance of as many Americans as you can. It 
may be that you will not like them all. It may be that you do not 

[7] 



2IO 

like all your own countrymen. But you will at least, I think, like 
most Americans. Cultivate them. Most of all, make an opportunity 
to go and see them and see their country and get a sympathetic knowl- 
edge of their methods and ways of life — make a proper appraisal of 
their character and aims. And, of course, this action must be mutual. 
In normal times many thousands of Americans do pay visits to your 
kingdom. They make pilgrimages. They comg for pleasure and 
instruction. As soon as the w£ir ends, they will come again in still 
greater numbers. 

But, in spite of the visits either way or both ways of large numbers 
of individuals, each people has a vast deal of ignorance about the 
other. Few merely private visitors get beneath the superficial con- 
ventions. By deliberately going about the task we may get far more 
thoroughly acquainted than we can get by the mere interchange of 
personal visits. I venture to put together a few definite suggestions. 

Put in your schools an elementary book about the United States — 
not a dull text-book, but a book written by a sympathetic man 
of accurate knowledge which shall tell every child in Britain about 
the country, about the people, how they work, how they live, what 
results they have achieved, what they aim at; about the United 
States Government, about our greatest men, about our social struc- 
ture — a book that shall make the large facts plain to any child ; and 
require that every child shall read it. A perfunctory book will fail. 
Have a hundred books written, if necessary, till the right one be writ- 
ten. There is, as you know, one great book written by an Englishman 
about the United States — Lord Bryce's 'American Commonwealth'. 
I wish it were read by as many persons here as in America. But this 
is not a book for children. There ought to be a more elementary book. 
You have often criticised certain old text-books of American history 
on which American children were supposed to be brought up — you 
have properly criticised them for laying undue emphasis on our war 
of revolution and on the conflicts our forefathers had with your fore- 
fathers. Now prepare a proper book for your own children, correct 
any disproportions these old American school books may have had, 
and give the chief emphasis not to our old differences but to our 
present likenesses and to our necessary close understanding for the 
future. 

On the American side, the disproportion and the wrong temper of 
these old text-books that have been much criticised are now, I think, 
fast disappearing. The newer text-books have corrected this old 
fault of our period of isolation. On the American side, too, I hope to 
see a modem elementary book about Great Britain put into schools 
— a book that shall tell children of the present Great Britain and 
point in the right spirit to the future. If we rear our children to 
understand the friendly similarities of our two peoples instead of 

[81 



211 

lodging old differences in their minds, we may lie down and die at 
ease and entrust to them the future not only of our two lands but of 
the whole world as well. 

Then encourage the giving of popular lectures by well-informed 
Americans about our country and our people. If you show that you 
wish to hear them, they will come. There is at this moment a well- 
informed group of your countrymen each lecturing in the United 
States on some phase of British life or activity, and a well-informed 
group of my countrymen in this Kingdom, each lecturing on some 
phase of American life or activity. 

I heartily hope that this form of popular instruction will continue 
and will grow long after the war is ended. After all, it is a common- 
place to say that there is no other land so full of pleasant and useful 
information for Americans as this Kingdom, and no other people so 
well worth our intimate acquaintance as your people; and it is 
equally true that no other land and no other people are so well worth 
your sympathetic study as the United States and those that dwell 
there; for they have the spirit of the modern world as no others have 
it. I hope you will pardon me for saying that a visit to America is 
an excursion into the future. 

We ought, too, to welcome and encourage the moving pictures of 
each country that are shown in the other — pictures of characteristic 
and instructive scenes and activities. It requires little imagination 
to see the immeasurable effect on public opinion I will say of ten 
years of such i>opular presentation of each land and each people to 
one another. Every visitor either way could then say what a friend 
of mine said on his first visit to England, "Oh, I know. It is so 
familiar. I have been here before— been here in almost all the great 
books that I ever read. I've not come to England. I've come back 
to England." 

Another useful piece of the machinery of popular ecfucation — 
perhaps the most useful piece — is the Press. Many of the most 
energetic editors in either country have visited the other. But if 
visits of groups of them were frequently arranged and if definite pro- 
grams were made for them to touch the real spirit of the other coun- 
try, better results would follow than follow casual visits. And, if 
when either country or government seems to do anything contrary 
to a proper understanding with the other country or government, 
if then instead of making judgments at a distance, a group of men 
who control the chief organs of opinion would themselves visit the 
other country and make personal first-hand investigations of what 
had gone wrong, many of our mistakes would be instantly corrected and 
well nigh all misunderstandings would disappear as soon as they arise. 

The thing to do is to luill a right understanding, and then it will 
be hard for a wrong understanding to arise. 

[9] - 



212 

I believe also in the suggestion that has been made of regular per- 
sonal correspondence between persons in each country. In spite of 
the newspapers, accurate and full information about what each 
country is doing to prosecute the war is very hard to get in the other 
country. I recently met an Englishman who told me that he was 
kept informed by an American correspondent. "Every important 
step taken by your government or people," said he, "is promptly 
though quite briefly explained by my American correspondent." 
These two men met in London by chance, and their correspondence 
grew out of this casual meeting. It is, of course, possible, with 
very little trouble, for every well-informed man and woman in each 
country to come to such an arrangement with some msm or woman 
in the other country. In addition to the welcome information that 
can thus be conveyed, there will, of course, in many cases spring up a 
personal friendship that is the best bond of continual amity between 
peoples. I think that much pleasure and instruction would come of 
such personal correspondence. ) 

I might make many such practical suggestions. Among them I 
should certainly include the encouragement of British students to 
go to American universities and . of more American students to 
British universities; and I should include pilgrimages both ways of 
large bodies of educational workers. You may say that all these 
things cost money. They are less costly than ignorance of one 
another. Besides, if our two peoples are to come together as we 
hope, travel must become much cheaper than it has ever been. 

And, perhaps, most important of all, I would suggest frequent 
visits by our public men, especially those who hold high office. I 
need cite only the recent historic visit of Mr. Balfour to the United 
States and his historic reception there. I doubt if any member of the 
Government of any people ever made a visit to another people, since 
governments began,